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

An excellent question. If John Kerry, as honorable person as he is, can not defeat a Rebublican as....emmm.... undistinguished as George W. Bush, then where do we go from here? There was nothing, absolutely nothing, that Bush can put on the table in front of American people and say "Here! I did THAT for you." Tremendous loss of jobs, shaky economy, deficits through the roof, a questionable war... how much GOP has to run the country to the ground? Plus, this year Democrats had some tremendous financial backers - MoveOn, ACT, George Soros... So it's not money - we had enough this year; not economy - most people are dissatisfied with their prospects and the way things are going; not Dow Jones - it's been down the month before the election; not public apathy - the core base has been very fired up prior to election, especially here in the Northeast; not even the Redskins . We can not blame Nader - he wasn't a factor this year. There was nothing wrong with the message, and in my opinion, we had a great messenger. It is sad that the lower the state's income level is, the more Republican the state votes. The poorest states in the nation - bastions of GOP. The wealthiest ones - Democratic strongholds. Talk about irony. I do indeed feel dejected.
So what can be done? I am not a big fan of Hillary in 08' (although I do respect her personally). I don't think she can get to the "average Joe" the way her husband was able to do, and, supposedly, the way Bush does. A new face must emerge. Barack Obama would be an excellent candidate. Senator Bayh of Indiana is a possibility as well.

I say let George go ahead and bury himself.

More leaders will emerge from this. I don't think we should automatically assume that Hillary Clinton will be the next Democratic Presidential nominee.

Perhaps more Americans will have to experience, up close and personal, the results of job outsourcing and having relatives in the continuing occupation of Iraq before they come to the realization that while it is risky changing horses in midstream, it is downright stupid to stay on a horse that's lame. The problems G.W. is facing now will continue and, as per usual, the American people and not Dubya will be bearing the brunt of them.

I voted move farther left and actually stand for something because it had the actually stand for something section. Moving farther left is not really the issue. Developing a program to make the government more and efficient and more effective at meeting the needs of the people is a direction to go.

The Democrats have done nothing effective since 1996. A group of leaders did not emerge from the Clinton presidency. Where are they? 8 years in office and great advances in managing the budget, employment, interest rates, and stock market growth and no one emerges to take advantage of that success.

In 2000 the democrats could not effectively argue what they had done to improve the nation. The only person that emerged with legs was Hillary Clinton.

There are significant issues, foreign policy, social security, tax reform, job policies, energy policy, environmental stewardship that are begging for more visionary solutions. All problems have solutions. Some solutions can be win-win solutions that everyone can get behind.

What have the democrats been proposing and hammering away at since 2000?
We have only been able to point out what is wrong and not advocate more effective solutions.

Sure we've been locked at out the rooms of power, but we have a voice and if a vision can be created, than it can be spoken until it is heard.

This is a cyclical trend that has as much to do with the redistribution of wealth as Bush's twang. A few good suggestions were made by conservatives (don't remember now, sorry), such as moving towards the center so it forces the Republicans back towards the center. It's a gamble, but one I think Republicans have already pulled off.

For the past half century Democrat was the party of social values, Republicans of personal values. While Democrats stressed government assistance to the poor and needy Republicans countered with personal responsibility. Social values is more profitable in terms of votes and the Republicans have pulled the rug out from under our feet. They are now the party of religious assistance by federal means, and with government funding comes more government involvement and restructuring.

Yeah, as a party they have setbacks any charitable person can disagree with, but there's also abortion and gay rights to contend with. On gay rights, at least, we're in the minority. On abortion I think three decades of access has made a younger generation of women complacent and oblivious to the legal ramifications of a Roe overturn that probably won't be restricted to abortion itself.

Months ago I said I didn't think the country was galvanized enough so that we'd witness an ideological swap as in the 60's, but I think that time may be coming. You can't draw people without something to distinguish yourself by, and the party of personal values is capitalizing on our social successes.

This'll take a long term game plan, though. The higherups had already planned to clamor the party needs to go further to the left. Since Kerry lost they'll rethink that. I think that's the best move, but it will be difficult to keep pressing the wedge issues without grass roots proclivity and lightening the reliance on representation by proxy organizations. I'm not proposing a dramatic shift to the center. Any shift at all requires careful deliberation that's as much instinct as it is knowledge.

I didn't vote for any of the poll choices and here's why.

I listened to the Tavis Smiley radio program on NPR this evening. Along with all the post-election analysis there was a psychiatrist who said what many are now experiencing is Post-Election Stress Syndrome. That may be a fancy way of saying, "depression" but the point is well considered.

How many of us really got emotionally invested in this election? Who put signs in their yards, knocked on the doors of total strangers, put a bumper sticker on our car, drove voters to the polls, wrote a check, called people during dinner to ask them to vote for John Kerry?

How many of us stood in line in the rain and the cold for hours to do something we had waited four years to do: Vote George W. Bush out of office.

Now it's over. The guy we didn't want to win did. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.

That's a pretty good reason to be bummed out or start drinking heavily.

But it's not a good reason to give up the fight. If there were reasons to be against Bush on November 2nd have they all magically disappeared on November 3rd?

A Dubya freed from the limits of having to run again can do a lot of damage. Damage to civil rights and a woman's right to choose and the environment and our standing in the world community and healthcare and the economy and on and on and on...

These aren't just cries of "doom and gloom." This is a call to arms. We can take about another 60 seconds to feel sorry for ourselves and then we'd better get BUSY! The need for a MoveOn.org is more acute now, not less. The need for people not to let the activist spirit that has been awakened go back to sleep is critical.

Ask yourself just one question: WHO BENEFITS IN A SECOND BUSH ADMINISTRATION? Odds are it's not people like me or people like you.

So go ahead and be depressed. Call in sick and stay in bed thinking dark thoughts if that's what it takes.

Then get your butt out of bed and back into action. We had our shot. We missed. The electorial process is a vitally important part in how to bring about change, but it isn't the only part. If you can't stand to lose then you shouldn't play the game. We give that advice to children but as adults we find it awfully hard to take ourselves.

I have a new signature and I would like to share it with you now:

We don't have time for despair. The fight doesn't change. It just gets harder. But it's the same fight.
--- Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) 1944-2002

I voted "move left and actually stand for something" but I could also very easily say that this is the GOP's '64 - let the GOP bury itself. I'll address both of them in my post.

First and foremost, this election proves one thing to me - message is key. The Democrats proved that they have no idea how to run a campaign and communicate a clear and concise message. How many times did we hear from our conservative counterparts here on AD things like "Kerry has no plan" or "Kerry Flip-flopped on X". Most of us passed it off as partisan rhetoric because we knew what Kerry was talking about and we saw his vision. But what this should have showed us is that America didn't understand what Kerry was selling and if they did, they didn't think it was significantly different from what Bush was pushing. We needed to communicate in small soundbite sized morsels what our agenda was, how we were going to implement it and we needed to back that up with extremely detailed plans.

If you really think about this its true, the last Democratic president won on style and charisma, not substance. The GOP is the master of message, but we don't have to sit here and take it.

Secondly, I do think we need to move farther left and draw sharp distinctions between the Democratic party and the Republican party. Bush and Cheney kept chanting "the liberal Massachussetts Senator" during the last weeks of the campaign. I say, so what?! We need to take the word "liberal" back, it isn't a dirty word and I'm sick of hearing people use it like it is one. I couldn't be more proud to say that I'm not only liberal but a San Francisco liberal. It is time for the Democratic party to paint a powerful vision for the future of America in the minds of voters. The republican party seems content to keep us in the dark ages, appeal to "traditional" values and use fear to keep us in line. We are different, and we need to articulate that. What I'm talking about here is embracing a very progressive agenda which will bring America into the 21st century politically. We need to embrace the ideas of "radicals" like Nader, Dean and Kucinich. We should not try and court the right wing and swing voters with our social agenda, we should be defining the new society.

How we should be appealing to "true" conservatives (not Republicans) and swing voters is through their wallets. The Republicans once held the reputation of being fiscally conservative, and they painted Democrats with the "tax and spend" label. It seemed to stick when in recent years it couldn't be further from the truth. George W. Bush has run up the deficit, trashed the economy, and is in the process of passing on all our debt to our children for his political gain. Let's hammer the Republicans in their wallets by promoting a fiscally conservative agenda. We could push for reforms to change the government and try and run it like a business. I think that this will be the common ground that will resonate with swing voters, independents and Republicans fed up with their party's fiscal agenda.

The Dean Factor. Howard Dean was on to something during the Democratic primaries, and instead of learning from his example, the old guard Democrats shot him down, marginalized him and destroyed him politically. Dean knew a thing or two that none of the old guard seems to have learned. First, you have to have passion for your beliefs and argue them with conviction, otherwise people are just going to think you are another dull politician telling everyone what they want to hear. When I listened to Dean speak (who I voted for in the primaries) I agreed with what he said, believed he would act on it and believed he would fight for my interests. When Kerry was selected he would talk, and I agreed with some of the things he said but I never truely believed he was different and I knew in my heart he'd change his position in a heartbeat if a gallup poll told him to. But he wasn't Bush and therefore the lesser of two evils.

Dean excited people, lead the revolution in internet fundraising and grassroots support. I believe that Kerry raised in excess of $300 million this year before federal funds kicked in, almost as much as Bush. Gore on the other hand only raised about $25 million (?) before federal funds kicked in. The reason that Kerry had such a huge warchest wasn't because there were new democratic millionaires or because people were so strongly for him, it was because of the groundwork that Dean laid with people donating $5, $10, $25 at a time through the internet.

If the Democratic party is smart they'll turn to Dean for advice and hope that he'll speak to them after they burned him.

As to the second part of my sentiment, I do believe that this will be the GOP's '64, but only if we take it to them. That party is incredibly arrogant and they think America is stupid and we can be lead around by our noses, I think they are about to find out exactly how false that is.

Bush will fail during this administration, his own hubris will be his demise. It is November 3rd today and absolutely nothing is different than it was on November 1st. Iraq is still a mess, Bush still has no plan to get out, the explosives he let slip away are still in the hands of terrorists and if he thinks elections will be successful in January he is deluding himself. The economy is still weak, people will still lose jobs. Bin Laden is still on the loose, terror is on the rise and Al Qaeda is still operating and planning. We still have little credibility internationally and Bush still has no concept of diplomacy.

He is doomed to fail and that is a fact. The good thing though, is that he might finally have to take responsibility for his actions at some point during this term. Terrorists will eventually strike again and 6 or 7 years removed he won't be able to blame Clinton, 9/11, the Democrats or even the soldiers - it will be his fault, and everyone will see that.

So what do we do to capitalize on that? We get involved and take congress by storm in 2006 during midterm elections. You have to give to Democratic candidates until it hurts in 2006, volunteer, write letters, make your voice heard. These problems will still be around in 2006 and perhaps worse and that is when we have to strike, that is when we can say "I told you so" by sending some Republicans packing back to their home state.

In 2008 we must get a flawless candidate selected for the office of president, it must be someone with passion, someone articulate, someone different. They must have vision and they must be able to communicate that to America.

Cube Jockey, ya know I agree with most of your sentiments, but I do think that the meltdown we experienced Tuesday is still too raw a wound for many of us.

The idea of "moving further to the Left" has a feel-good sound to it, but who exactly is the standard-bearer for this movement? A good, solid liberal like John Kerry had money, organization and a George W. Bush working for him. It didn't work for him so why do we think it will for a Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean or John Edwards in 2008?

Don't like the names I've thrown out? I'm open to suggestions. Joe Lieberman? Wesley Clark? Al Gore? John Breaux? Dick Gephardt?

It's high time Democrats and liberals (two mutually-exclusive terms) stopped counting on Dubya to fall flat on his face and hand us the keys to the White House. It isn't going to happen!! Haven't we learned from 2000 and 2002 and now in 2004? Bush is NOT going to beat himself. He has an organization behind him that will not permit this to happen. The political graveyard is full of smart Democrats that "misunderestimated" Bush and his appeal and his power time and time again.

Remember how frustrated the Republicans were because they couldn't beat Bill Clinton and had to endure eight long years of hell on Earth because they couldn't get rid of him? What goes around comes around.

What worries me is how RED America is today and how isolated those patches of BLUE are. We ignore that at our own risk. It doesn't behoove the Progressive Left to pin all our hopes and future to the fickle fortunes of the Democratic Party. Anybody who thinks the Democratic Leadership Council is thinking about tacking Left in 2008 is smoking something. Somewhere in America there's a Democratic governor calling up Kerry for his Palm Pilot of donors. There's not going to be a sudden embracing of Howard Dean, because right now he comes from the wrong side of the country.

I'm not pouring cold water on the notion of the Democratic Party finding its soul and moving to the political Left as all the parking spaces on the Right seem to be full. But that approach in and of itself is not a winning strategy on Election Night 2008.

We've tried running a committed liberal with a liberal record on top of the ticket and we got our butts handed to us. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. What we want here in our little corner of the Internet isn't what matters. The question is what kind of Democrat can the Democratic Party nominate that we on the Left can stomach but can still actually win?

I want to toss two Slate articles that I feel cover what's on our minds right now nicely.

Whither Liberalism? Again?
Democratic Values

I did not read them before posting. While I consider Bush's reelection and Senate/House Republican gains a great loss for average Americans, not just the party, I'm looking at it as an opportunity as well. (Not to mean I side with the DLC.)

I too share a lot of your sentiments nighttimer, and I really think I have gone through pretty much all 5 stages of the grieving process in the past 24 hours.

But, after reflecting on it I have resolved that the only thing to do is take that angst and hold on to it, use it to gain an edge. We have to say "fine, you won this battle, but we are going to win the war". And we will, in the end progressive thinking always triumphs over "traditional values". The philosophies we hold dear have advanced society and they will continue to do so. The lure that the GOP has is that people are afraid of change. I am perfectly willing to drag people, kicking and screaming if I have to, into the future.

I don't think the superstars of the Democratic party are any of the people that you listed, and especially not Hillary Clinton because people would vote against her simply because of who she is. The knight in shining armor who will ride in on a white horse isn't going to be any of the players in the game today, it will have to be someone new. The players now will never be able to adapt to the new strategy necessary.

If you take a look at people like Howard Dean, Arnold Schwartzenegger and Barak Obama you'll see that they basically have a few things in common: they don't fit the norm for a politician, they are outsiders, they have passion and you can't pin them down to a specific ideology. It will be one of these people or someone like them that should be the next super star of the Democratic party.

There are a lot of reasons we got our butts handed to us in this election, John Kerry being liberal wasn't one of them in my opinion.

If the Democratic party refuses to change and keeps trying the old methods that worked for Clinton or even Carter then they had better get used to losing because we'll have a longer losing streak than the Boston Red Sox. I for one don't like to lose.

I don't think America is really so red as the results would have us believe. I personally believe that Bush was able to successfully turn this election into a referendum on gay marriage and that is why people showed up to vote. I have seen (but don't currently have) exit poll data suggesting that a majority of people voted for Bush because of his "morals". At least I hope that is what the deal is, because otherwise I have to wonder - has america really just been blind, deaf and dumb for the past 4 years?

We have nothing to lose, and if we don't take some risks we'll never be anything but an also-ran. The question you have to ask yourself is this: Can it really get any worse than it is now? We lost the battle for president, we lost ground in both the Senate and the House and soon enough Bush will stack the federal benches and the Supreme Court with judges that will make Scalia look like a Marin hippie that wears hemp clothing, eats free-range chicken and drives a Prius.

We need to start thinking about 2006 now while the loss is fresh on our minds. We need to get our message out to the Democrats and fresh faces into incumbent Republican districts and take back the Senate.

I think the GOP’s success can be attributed to a few factors.

If you measure the political spectrum on a scale of 1 – 5, with 1 being the far left and 5 being the far right, my guess is the majority of Americans fall in the 2.5-3.5 range. And when faced with candidates that are clearly to the left or right of 2.5 they will tend to choose the more conservative one.

For what ever reasons, by nature Americans are socially conservative, resistant to change and will choose a candidate they feel won’t rock the social/moral boat. This past election clearly demonstrates that social/moral issues outweighed all the other more pressing issues. Throw out the Iraq war and the deficit and Bush probably gets 55-60% of the vote.

The other major factor that I see is what the GOP and their supporters have done in the last 10-14 years: brand the word liberal as if it were the coming of satan. This is reinforced daily on highly popular right wing shows and continuously repeated by Dubya during the debates. Add the fact that most voters don’t take the time to properly educate themselves on the issues and/or candidates and it makes the perfect GOP elixir.

This was no more evident than in my home state. With approximately a 60/40 proportion of registered Dem’s/Rep’s there should be no way a republican would stand a chance, especially this election. Since KY wasn’t a swing state we didn’t get the presidential media blitz. What we did get in hotly contested Senate/Representative races were a lot of RNCC sponsored commercials that attacked the democratic challenger by making claims like “If elected, Mongiardo (Bunnings opponent) will follow the liberal agenda of Kerry”. Almost every commercial sponsored by the RNCC would toss in the “L” word.

So I think moving more to the left is political suicide.

How do we bounce back?

Two things hurt Kerry: the liberal stamp and the ‘flip-flopper’. We need to support a more moderate candidate, that’s why I was for Edwards in the primary, his only vulnerability that I saw was he was a trial lawyer. Big woop.

W need to find another young Senator who either hasn’t had a long track record to attack (Obama) or one that’s a proven moderate. My preference is to find a governor.

I’m sure I don’t have to remind this group, but the last two Dem presidents were governors. It’s hard to pin that liberal tag on a governor, they have no legislative voting record.

Putting our hopes on Hillary is a huge mistake: she’s a horrible public speaker and from my observations a very marginal leader at best.

Getting rid of Terry Mcauliffe would be another place to start.

Edited for grammer.

I was thinking today, and I don't think "being liberal" was really Kerry's downfall. There is no doubt that Kerry was in fact liberal, but his problem was that he refused to be the person he was. Kerry tried to appear moderate and take moderate positions on things, but there are three problems with that:
1) The Republicans consistently pointed to his record and shows that he was in fact liberal (in other words lying)
2) It is rather hard to be something you are not all the time, just like it is impossible to keep telling the same lie the same way, eventually you'll trip up.
3) People can see through all of that, and they knew he wasn't sincere even if all of us wanted to believe he was.

The problem isn't with being liberal, and if the Democratic party would simply embrace that and then get the message out that it isn't a bad thing™, we could counter the Republican Noise Machine on it. I really don't think the average American understands what "liberal" means, they just know about all the negative connotations.

The Democratic party needs to offer something the Republican party doesn't and give us a reason to vote for them instead of against the Republicans. I personally think that starts with having a clear and exciting vision for the country, embracing socially progressive values and being fiscally conservative (because the GOP is the polar opposite of that these days and that is where many traditional Republicans disagree with the party).

The news networks are saying that it was "moral values" which made the difference--this is according to the exit polls that were taken. Obviously, evangelicals represent a larger, more influential group than some of us thought.

Some of the reaction of the evangelicals was out of fear (remember the rumor that Kerry was going to take away their Bibles ), but the two issues evangelicals pointed to were the abortion issue and gay marriages.

Now on the gay marriage issue, Kerry said he supported civil unions (same as Bush!) but not marriages, but Bush brought up the subject, and I can imagine some faithful churchgoers cringing at the thought of watching a next-door neighbor in tux and tails carrying across the threshold his husband dressed as a blushing bride. Shades of Ru Paul and all that. And while evangelicals can ignore Old Testament teachings of not drinking milk while eating meat and so forth, there is a long history of detesting the thought of (especially) men having sex together.

But more basic than that is the fact that the Democratic party at this time does not seem to make allowances for those of us who are socially progressive but still oppose abortion. As long as the Democrats do not include us, we will feel marginalized and the GOP will hold an attraction for us. So far, I have not been tempted to jump the fence because this President is so socially unconcerned and/or unaware of the plight of many Americans, and he is quick to declare war on the wrong people. But I've got to tell you, every time I hear the pro-choice people dismiss the pro-life people and just refer to an embryo as a mass of tissue, I think again about whether I belong in the Democratic party. Can't we be pro-life and pro-birth control and pro-jobs and universal health care?

Not voting on this one, but here's what I see coming down in the next four years:

First off, a Bush second term could very well be the best thing that happens for the Democrats. A full failure, as with Hoover, will get us the right person to lead in the right direction at the right time (hehe).

Dean created the new way of raising campaign funds, via the Internet and meetups. Hone that great idea -- millions of $25 donations will equal and exceed a handful of million dollar donations. Work small, think big -- and with each passing year, more people will be online.

Stop thinking four more years. Start thinking two more years. We'll have a shot at Congress and many state/local positions in two years. What do you suppose Bush will do to keep Congress? War has already been used, and terrorism will be another two years old. What will be the big fear factor? Also keep in mind that the Iraq situation will be another two years old.

Simplify messages and make them strong. Where do Democrats want to take this country? If we are headed in the wrong direction, what is the right direction? We need to be very clear on this.

I was first thinking that we ought to get as nasty as the Republicans, as ruthless. But now I don't think so. We need to offer a much better vision, a much better direction -- a political leadership that will benefit the most people. That'll get the votes. Remember Clinton and the vision thing that confused GHWB? Something like that.

For everyone who worked so hard and feel so disappointed, I drink to thee. Thank you for all your hard work, all your belief, all your pouring out to help this nation become something it once was, and better. You are all heros in my book.

And I suspect many others. Someone somewhere is thinking of doing a rock opera on the election of 2004. Andrew Loyd Weber? Bon Jovi? Hey, that's the least that musicians and playwrites can do for you all -- immortalize the effort.

I bet such a thing would make piles of money, too. Got nearly 60 million possible customers!

Yeah man, and make the characters just like you all are. Really beautiful and hopeful, and tragic near the end. Tell the story from the streets. End with hope, something bright and inspirational, like Tomorrow.

It's always there

I'm a registered republican, but voted straight democrat this election, so I hope that allows me to make a post in "enemy territory"...

I'm not sure the democratic party can go anywhere but up. Not only did the dems put their best up against the worst president in history and lose, but lost 5 seats in the house as well.

I could be wrong, but there might be a message in there somewhere.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure there is anything the democratic party can do and remain the same party. Clearly, gay marriage is a show stopper. If you want to hold out for this issue, you'll be left standing at the alter. I'd say drop it. America is not ready for it. If you strongly disagree and want to push that forward on principle, you'll lose healthcare, education, and other social reforms at that issue's expense. Is it worth it? Do you want to lose everything because of an issue most Americans disagree with?

Another issue is gun control. Personally, I am closer to the democrats than republicans on this issue, but I favor only handgun control. But most of America believes that democrats want to steal their guns from them regardless of the truth. So, that perception needs to change. Take it off the table. Since we do not enforce the current gun laws, why bother?

Abortion is the only issue where neither side will give. And I wouldn't suggest the dems give up on it no matter how much I think pro-choice is legalized murder. That pretty much defines the party. So, you really need to hope for the best with that, but don't be shocked as America moves even further away from pro-choice.

Since I think moderates on each side of the aisle are fairly close on most social programs (education, health care, etc), the abortion issue is not unsurmountable.

But what is unsurmountable is putting up a plastic potted plant (Gore, Kerry) or a divisive figure (Clinton). Can't the dems find anybody everybody likes? Is it really that hard?

Night, you're right. We don't need to move left. And we certainly don't need to move further right. One of the articles Lesly links to makes that point rather succinctly, I think. Moving further right only allows the Conservatives to move even further right, while still demonizing us as being "too far left".

Where we're at is just about right, I believe. And we do have a couple of candidates that can win for us. Ready?

John Edwards, Barack Obama, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.

John Edwards we already know from his primary and VP candidate roles. Barack Obama, while new, and despite Keye's labeling of him as a left wing radical is actually quite centrist. The same goes for Blago and Warner.

The other thing they all have in common, as opposed to the current Democratic leadership, is an ability to take the issues, and condense them into short, meaningful answers that make sense to the public, whether in speeches or debates.

And by meaningful answers, I mean they are able to show that they too have "shared values" with the people they govern, and don't concede the "values" or "morals" argument to the Republicans.

I don't think Obama would really be ready in four years, but as a running mate to someone in eight? Absolutely.

John Edwards has a problem now, not in that he was part of a losing effort, but that he's not going to be in the Senate at the end of this year. If he's going to make a credible run, he needs to find a place that will maintain a fairly high profile over the next few years. Maybe running a Democratic think tank, or some such thing. If he can do this, he'd be my first choice.

Rod Blagojovich has been proven popular in a state that is actually quite "RED" outside of Chicago, mainly for his ability to work with the State houses here to find ways to balance the budget, coming to office with a $10 billion deficit, and yet maintain services.

The other popular stance here, is bucking the Feds on getting a program started to import drugs from Canada, while pushing for the ability to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for prescription drugs through the state medical services departments.

Mark Warner was elected in 2002. Since then, he's assembled a bipartisan coalition to win General Assembly support for the nation's most ambitious tax reform proposal. The plan lowers the income tax, reduces the sales tax on groceries, and closes corporate tax loopholes. And he's done this while getting the state out of a $6 billion dollar shortfall.

Warners tax proposals, particularly eliminating the buisiness loopholes allowed the state to make new investments in public education, higher education, law enforcement and healthcare, while preserving the state's reputation for fiscal integrity.

Any one of these guys would serve well, have a reputation for bipartisanship, and more importantly, can package their message in a way that shows they are thinking about the "average joe" and his values of hard work and fair play, without having to "fake it".

I read a great quote today by political analyst Larry Sabato. He said, "There's nothing wrong with the Democrats that winning a presidential election won't cure."

Right. We've just forgotten how. But look at this way: Now we know how the Republicans felt when they had to get through eight years of Bill Clinton. It SUCKED and now we're in the same position.

I think there's a natural response to view the conservative success of the last three election cycles as the rise of the Right and the demise of the Left. But tell me something---does anyone think Hilary Clinton is the answer to the party's problems in winning elections on a national scale?

There's plenty of room on the Far Left side of the political paradigm. The problem is that isn't where the masses are, and becoming even more elitist and removed from the masses isn't going to win them back from the GOP. It's not that Bush isn't a right-winger. He is. But he's successfully packaged himself as being right smack-dab in the mainstream of contemporary political thought. Senator Clinton can't make that claim.

As for John Kerry? Nice guy. Great resume. Solid U.S. Senator. Boring as hell. About as charismatic as a telemarketer. Once again the fact has been hammered home that skilled senators don't make for great candidates. Smart guys lose out to dumb guys people feel comfortable with. Maybe we've been wrong all along and Americans want a President dumber than they are. Three million voters can't all be wrong, can they?

I'm not prepared to turn the party back over to the Democratic Leadership Council so they can barf up some Republican-Lite loser like Joe Lieberman in 2008. There are a lot of talented liberals and moderates in the party that can run and win in 2008 against whomever the GOP puts forth as Bush's successor. But coming up with another Howard Dean/John Kerry Eastern liberal isn't going to get the job done. History and the political realities of this country make such a move prohibitive.

And I agree with William Saletan of SLATE that despite his inability to win North Carolina, don't be quick to dismiss John Edwards. Could a Edwards and Wesley Clark ticket done any worse than Kerry/Edwards?

My thoughts are just as unfocused as everyone else's after the whupping we took. But at least we're thinking and mutually agreed there needs to be some ch-ch-changes made.

That's the first step to positioning ourselves for the 2006 Congressional races.

Let's get this party started.

I had really wished Tony Knowles had won the senate seat here in Alaska- he is the absolutely most perfect dem contender for the white house there could ever be. Mayor, Governer, and very well thought of one at that, a dem in a republican state. Very very centrist, but with business development leanings. He was a frat brother of GW, dropped out, went to Vietnam, served with the 101rst with distinction, came back to Yale, completed his degree, married, left on a lark to Alaska became a roughneck on the oil patch, then opened his own deli in downtown Anchorage, became mayor, then governer, and ably governed Alaska and Anchorage during out worst economic downturn in our states short history.

Extremely charismatic, very nice guy, creditials up the ying yang- this guy would knock the socks off any challenger, and would give Bill Clinton a run for his money as a campaigner if he could just get on the national stage.

There is no way the repubs could even think of labeling him as a liberal, and he is pro-choice and very centrist- it is a candidate I could get very excited about if he could just get the attention of the national stage.

With him as the lead ticket and Obama as running mate, I don't think anyone would stand a chance against him. There are just no skeletons in his closet.

My thoughts aren't unfocussed.

The Religious Right was born after Goldwater's defeat. It was a political reaction, not a national identity emergence. We're talking about three decades of a cumulative, multi-faceted effort to round up social conservatives and align them with the Republican party using everything from think tank lobbyists to syndicated talk show radio and opinion polls to shape public perception.

The GOP never endorsed or publicly acknowledged a Christian branch until now. By that I mean just giving charities federal money to spend on so-called social services with little oversight. Reagan had the best of both worlds in that he was able to placate the Religious Right and keep a semblance (or at least appearance) of conservative values. The support the Religious Right has received from the GOP and the political inroads they’ve made truly concern me on issues like a complete ban of abortion and actively seeking to tear down the wall between church and state they claim never existed.

I don’t want to sound like a paranoid atheist but I don’t think we have an appreciation for how much power they have consolidated over time. I would never have imagined the White House stroking the Apostolic Congress’ objection to Sharon’s plan because Israel needs to be intact and the temple rebuilt for Christ’s return. Do I think the Religious Right directly affects foreign policy today? No, but it isn’t coincidence the AC has access to Elliott Abrams.

This is the result of huge effort on the part of the GOP and the RR. If the Democrats turn it around it won’t happen overnight. I don’t think it’ll take 30 years to retake the House/Senate, but rippling effects take time to bring about change and a long-term commitment. The biggest hurdle Democrats face is Democrats. Even at our best we're more fragmented than Republicans at their worst. For all the welfare state woes the opposition piles on us I truly believe we value self-determination of the individual to a fault. It will take a national plan, not a presidential plan, to keep us focused long enough to reach the goal line. We can start with a coherent platform that can be gracefully expressed. In the meantime we may be better served by adopting a posture of Loyal Opposition the Republicans deserted when they won all sides.

Thinking of Goldwater now, my biggest concern is the Dems will implode and grasp at straws, any straws, as I believe the Republicans did four decades ago. I wonder if the Religious Right had emerged if the country had not swung as far to the left as it did during those times. I'm not going to knock the advances liberals made, though. As dirty as LBJ ran his campaign calling Goldwater's mental health into question he conceded the South to Republicans when he signed the CRA into law. I'm afraid the shock of losing this election may similarly affect Democrats.

I don't want us to latch unto special interests in the middle of an identity crisis and wind up being, not looking, like the anti-religion party. That's a reactionary response. Reactionary responses are better suited for campaigns to stifle your opponent's crap, not mold your party. In fact, I think we rely on special interests too much, when they should be move around us like satellites, keeping a respectful distance. Cooler heads should prevail until leaders emerge.

I'm not proposing dramatic change. I certainly don't want the DLC to turn us into Republicans with good hair. Doing nothing would be even worse. An exploration of the middle can be fortuitous.

Although the office of the presidency has a lot of power I'm more saddened by the House and Senate results. Part of me hoped Bush would get reelected so he'd have to answer for his mistakes, whether or not he's willing to admit them. This time there is no Clinton, no Greenspan, no dot com bubble to blame for dreadful mismanagement leading to a seven trillion dollar national debt. Another upside may be that, bolstered by election results Republicans overplay their hand, and public backlash will be waiting in the 2006 Senatorial race. I suspect we'll see more and stronger right-wing influence as the GOP gets more comfortable in its majority role.

My question is really just - how do we make the party listen? I am skeptical that these career politicians will come up with anything new and exciting for 2006 and 2008. As nighttimer said, the quickest thing that is going to anger me is for them to push something like Lieberman 2008. If they are going to do something like that why don't we just admit defeat now and have one big political party. And actually Clinton 2008 would be just as bad because they would prove one thing to me, they haven't learned anything.

I too think the growing zeal of the religious right is cause for concern, but I still don't think that is why we lost. I am convinced that we lost because we were voting against Bush and not for John Kerry. The conservatives coined the phrase "ABB" and then used it against us, and to a certain extent it was true.

For me, I was voting for Kerry largely because Bush was the greater evil. I did believe that some of the things he was saying were correct and I was on board with him, but if I could have picked any of the Democratic candidates he would have been among the last choices. I think all of us probably feel that way to varying degrees.

We need a candidate that is real, charismatic and that can inspire the American people with a vision for the future. If we had that person this election, I think we would have won hands down because the Republicans were overwhelmingly playing off people's fears about a wide variety of issues.

Make it listen by pressing honest evaluation. I am not, and never have been, so timid about constructive criticism in my affiliation to a liberal party that my knees turn to jello. The Democratic Underground is a mess at the moment playing the blame game. Such a waste of good energy.

It is very tempting to bounce off ideas for the next presidential nominee with Cheney's departure and a fresh crack in four years, but I won't. This places too much emphasis too soon after a striking defeat on one person to "save us" or define us and draws attention away from internal fissures. While I hope the Reps will incite an electorate revolt from their own success I won't count on it. That's not to suggest I think we should wait until the 11th hour to start looking, but while the dust settles, some time for reflection couldn't hurt. Distracting ourselves with defeating the ghost of GWB will not make the black eye hurt a little less. Not to mention we'll have to steel ourselves for the upcoming judicial battles and coach and monetarily support winnable candidates for the upcoming Senate race.

I think the problem we face is one of identity. It isn't just that parties in power grow comfortable with time, but we have lost our voice and Republicans aren't to blame. As the GOP has shown to be willing to support social responsibility recently Democrats sound more like Republicans, or Republicans sound more like us, take your pick. We must find common ground within the party and reach a consensus. It is possible to establish a distinct identity without swinging either right or left. If we do, it will be a good thing for us in the long run. (On that note of social responsibility, while we rightly consider ourselves the real social champions I think the most discouraging effect of losing all three branches has been witnessing the GOP machine trash international institutions we’ve helped forge like the U.N. year after year, be forced to watch them thoroughly botch the art of diplomacy now that they’re at the helm, and wear their indifference like a badge of honor.)


What does that tell you about Kerry? Seriously, with so much anti-Bush sentiment out there a garden gnome should have defeated him. Kerry's shortcomings aside, his campaign was divided from the getgo between the shrill anti-Bush crowd and level-headed strategists that took over near the end. I am very proud of the enormous get out the vote effort the party put forward. I am not so proud of the chokehold we've given Republicans over us by not moving past the "deer in the headlights" shock of losing all three branches.


I voted for Kerry as well. I'm not so sure about picking the wrong candidate when I think the party was so focused on defeating Bush—I agree with the reasons behind the efforts—that it lost sight of the People. Middle America doesn't give a rat's behind about party loyalty. We've been so focused on recapturing our past majority status I think the party has lost sight of the reason why it seeks to wield power and influence to begin with.

On the other hand, if Democrats find their identity, their voice, and decide to walk the walk, not just talk it, we may be in for some tough times, tougher than even now. For instance, we may need to wean ourselves off corporate donations and possibly lose even more elections in the process. We’re as much a whore of corporate America now as Republicans have been for years.

This is the first time I have posted in the Democratic thread that I can recall. I never felt comfortable posting here because my views are completely out of line with most Democrats who post here at AD. It also seems I have the reputation of being a DINO (Democrat in Name Only). That may be true to a certain extent, however, what many of you may not know is that I voted for Clinton twice and for Gore in 2000.

You see, I believed in Clinton’s agenda. Of course, most people recognize that many of Clinton’s policies were of a conservative nature, thus his success. I thought (mistakenly) that Gore would continue with Clinton’s agenda. However, I now feel that the Democratic Party no longer represents my views. I feel the Democratic Party is not in line with mainstream America or with my views of how to get our country to a better place.

I received an email from someone that I respect asking me to share my thoughts about which direction the Democratic Party should head in order to win back Southern Democrats, like me. Before I do that, let me tell you a little bit about what many other Southern Democrats and I believe.

We lean right on security. The Michael Moores of this world only make us plant ourselves more firmly in our support for the President and the troops. I personally believe the President could/should have handled things differently concerning the number of troops, disbanding the Iraqi army, and Abu Ghraib, but hindsight is 20/20. Monday morning quarterbacking is for those who aren’t having the make the decisions to start with and although constructive criticism is welcomed, finger pointing and the blame game is a complete turn off and does nothing to help the situation. Many times, (although I want to believe it is not the intent) the criticism seems to reflect on the troops. I have no doubt it affects the troops to hear the criticism.

Many of us lean right on fiscal issues. We support the tax cuts. We believe that money in our pockets is better spent. We believe money in our pockets moves the economy. We have seen the tax cuts improve our lives. You see you cannot tell me that the tax cuts did not help middle income earners. I am one of them. I know I got more money in my paycheck and I have done things with that money, e.g. remodeling my kitchen, new carpet, remodeling my bathroom. In addition, for the first time in a while, I am looking to buy a new car. Therefore, when John Edwards tried to convince me that there were two Americas, I did not believe him. There was no hope in his speech – only divisiveness.

We believe affirmative action was a wonderful tool at one time, but should be reformed (not done away with) to coincide with the times. People should look at what Jeb Bush has done in Florida. We did away with AA and replaced it with a system that works, a system that puts more minorities in college.

We want to stop the outsourcing of jobs. Many of us believe we should allow drugs to be purchased from Canada. I personally believe strongly in gay marriage, support abortion with limits (I believe in trying to prevent abortions) and there are a lot more like me out there. We support the No Child Left Behind program, desire tort reform, and do not believe in socialized medicine.

Now, for my opinion as requested by my friend. The Democratic Party is in serious trouble. Most Democrats don’t realize it, but in my opinion, it started in 2000. I find it astonishing that Gore lost that election. Compare the 2000 election with the 1988 election. Both had the incumbent VP running for the top of their respective tickets. Both were following hugely popular Presidents that presided over great economies. Gore should have been easily elected, as George H.W. Bush was in 1988.

However, he was not, and from the Democrats behavior the last four years, they have not a clue why. However, I do. Moreover, it is really simple.

Americans have rejected the Democratic Party's platform because Democrats keep moving left, and the electorate, shall we say, has slapped them with a "market correction".

I will try to make this as simple and clear as possible. DEMOCRATS WILL NOT WIN THE POTUS BY RUNNING A NORTHEAST LIBERAL. Keep repeating that until it is embedded in your brain. At least remember it eight years from now, when Democrats MAY have another legitimate chance to win. (This depends on how the first term of the Rudy Guliani/Condi Rice ticket goes. )

A few other things:

Run a candidate that does not talk down to the electorate the way Gore did. Run a candidate with a positive message, not a fear-monger like Kerry – and yes he did try to instill fear in Americans by telling people Bush would reinstate the draft (when only Democrats had proposed and voted for this) and telling seniors that Bush would reduce their social security checks (a complete lie). Most of all run a candidate that is sincere. If Democrats cannot do that, at least get one that can fake sincerity.

In addition, if this President takes a position on a matter of national interest, do not automatically take the opposing position. Many of Bush's incentives are very progressive. Work to make the USA a better place, and when that happens Democrats can take joint credit.

It appears to many of us, including me that the Democratic Party is trying to divide the American people. The more Democrats preach two Americas and the more Democrats rely on what appears to me to be hatred of the opposition (an elitist attitude), the more Democrats will be voted out of office. Stop being as angry and contrary as you have been the last four years.

And most of all listen to mainstream America. We are trying to send you a message. You may disagree with me, but one has only to look at the EC map to see that the current Democratic ideas don't play well in the South.

Move back toward center.

I'd very much agree Lesly, which is why days after the election I'm sitting here wondering why we lost. A garden gnome should have prevailed against Bush, but we had a decent alternative and he didn't succeed. If I had to give a top three list as the reasons why he failed the reasons would be:
1. His campaign was horribly run. They couldn't find their message, couldn't stay on message and they couldn't effectively counter Republican attacks. It isn't even like they didn't have money, I think Kerry raised the most money for a Democrat ever.

2. Kerry wasn't real, he wasn't honest about who he was. As I said before I think this was transparent to people truely on the fence. He was liberal but he tried to appear moderate. He was initially for the war in Iraq but then when Dean gained ground by going it against it he switched.

3. The vietnam factor. I can excuse Kerry for thinking that playing up his war experience would make him appear to be tough on defense and terror, but what I can't excuse is that when it started going badly he continued to play it up Were I running that campaign I probably wouldn't have even mentioned it knowing it was going to bring up 35 year old feelings from every veteran out there and now they were going to blame him for all of their problems (perceived or real) simply because he was talking about it and he was anti-war after the he returned home.

Edited to add: Comforting words from Mark Morford. I think you'll enjoy the article (ok, rant), but this passage is important:

The following is a very interesting analysis of the newsletter campaign waged by Bush and Kerry in the final weeks before the election - email news letters rated. There is also a good follow-up article here: Newsletters during the final week.



I definitely think there are some lessons to be learned here in both articles. For one, why the heck was Kerry asking for money with more than 50% of the newsletters which were the week before the election? I mean seriously, what did he need money for?

These two articles further reinforce my belief that the campaign was just run with incompetence and that as far as playing the game goes, the Republicans just beat us. It doesn't have anything to do with issues, they are just better at the game. In fact, given what the issues were this time, it becomes plainly obvious.

For anyone trying to figure out how Democrats recover from last week's debacle, it would be foolish to ignore the complete domination of the South by President Bush and the concern of disaffected Democrats like Belladonna.

Almost 56 million people voted for John Kerry. Bush won with more votes than any candidate for president ever received. Kerry lost with more votes than any candidate for president ever received. Bringing those people back in 2008 and making the party a place where disaffected Democrats can feel welcome and respected must be a top priority. It isn't enough just to nominate a pretty face and someone who can raise a lot of money. It helps to have a presidential candidate that stirs our passions and doesn't just cater to fear and division.

As of today, I don't know who that candidate is. I don't know who the candidate is that can convince Democrats as diverse as Artemise, Wertz, Suzy Steamboat, Cube Jockey, BOF, Beladonna, Lesly or myself that he or she can unite us, appeal to disaffected independents and Republicans (like Dayton Rocker).

I respectfully disagree with Beladonna that it would be certain death for the Dems to nominate another Northeast liberal as POTUS. I don't think the party will, (Sorry, Hillary), but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. Al Gore wasn't a Northeast liberal and his window of opportunity seems to have closed for good (or has it?). Was it John Kerry's liberalism that turned voters off or was it that he was such a stiff and uninspiring candidate?

The Democrats had a cross-section of candidates from various factions of the party to choose from during the primaries. There was the anti-war new kids like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. There were two black candidates in Carol Mosely-Braun and Al Sharpton. There were moderates like Joe Lieberman and Bob Graham. Fresh faces like John Edwards. Old pros such as Richard Gephardt. Bona fide war heroes in Wesley Clark and John Kerry.

Now out of that group, tell me who gets the nod to champion the cause following the defeat of Kerry?

There is plenty of talent within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Both in its potential leaders and the grassroots, but somehow they have GOT to get on the same page.

Right now it's important to start asking the questions. The answers will come as the debate goes along.

Hopefully none of them. They are weak and wouldn't win. None of them is inspiring. Well except for Sharpton--but he would be a disaster as a candidate.

Evan Bayh comes to mind--well respected by both sides of the isle.

Barack Obama, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and Virginia Gov. Mark Warner. as mentioned earlier would be great candidates.

As a recent convert to being a Democrat I find myself firmly in agreement with Beladonna. A centrist or moderate would be a good choice to win. I just do not see the Left being able to provide a candidate who can win. Hell Clinton was a centrists and he only won the first time because of Perot. Without him there would be a solid line of Republicans presidents since Carter.

Dems had better start thinking more about the needs of middle class America and like it or not there has to be a loss of the scorn so many of the Liberal Dems have for people of faith. The scorn and hate is almost venomous at times and I'm glad to say that THAT tactic only works for Republicans.

Democrats need to seriously look at the way they approach issues.

Biggest thing IMO--government--big government that is-- is NOT the answer. Policies that place the ability to help directly in the hands of your fellow citizens would help rekindle the lost sense of community in America.

Support for small business should become the priority economically. Small business does not outsource and they remember that their employees are important--not numbers to be crunched. Assault companies that do outsource or try to move their HQs offshore to escape taxes--yet still reap the rewards of being American. Not calling for protectionism in anyway, but stop rewarding thieves.

Tax relief for working families--as in stop ripping off my paycheck to pay for programs that aren't affordable. Its also criminal that a one paycheck family can not raise a family--I'm not talking about a Waltons size family here-- but most Americas see their children less and less and right THERE is where your drug and pregnancy problems come from. We need to start fighting for families in this nation--and if you fail to do so you leave them no where else to go but the Republicans.

The border--secure it. Sorry folks but it is getting ridiculous out here in the west...
Fail to do something and you will lose the west. Fail to do something soon and innocent people who are just trying to support families will continue to be treated like servants.
Pressure needs to be exerted on Mexico to make changes to their government and stop MAKING their citizens into peasants forced to flee to try and find work.
Guest worker program, guest worker program Guest worker program--any questions?
Heavy fines for employing illegals. whether a company or a home owner. $$$$$
Find out which companies profit from this and hurt them with boycotts. Also find out where members of the Mexican government invest the money they rape from the Mexican people and make them pariahs to the financial community.

Education is a failure. for all those whining about how stupid Americans are and the "Dumbing down of American society"--you elitist prigs -- Its the Dems who have had control of the education of Americans-- so the Dems have failed and have no one else to blame.

Where is the response to the republican smear and propaganda machine--cable and talk radio? Why are Democrats so horrible at taking the past words of Republicans and smacking them upside the head with them?
With limbaugh as an example, he has said in the past that the way to fight the drug war is to nail the "Rich white elitist--read Hollywood Liberal-- who always get away with using drugs and then getting their influence to get them out of it. Should have been able to beat him down with past comments like that.
But NO--not a peep.

There definetely needs to be a build up in organizing a response to the Limbaugh/Hannity clones who function as the Republican rally monkeys 24-7 365.
The Democrat silence has been deafening.
and for crying out loud BOYCOTT any and all Fox Cable shows. Cut them off and avoid. If they try to corner you--talk baseball and smile politely. it will drive them beserk.

Finally be careful who represents you. Moore is offensive and his insults towards America make me want to slug that fat bloated blowhard. He does more damage than good IMO.

Don't worry though my new Democrat brothas and sisters. It is no defeat but an opportunity for rebirth and new ideas.

I agree with what belladonna was saying, we need to get back to the center. But look, We lost nationally by almost 4 million votes. We only won 18 states, we got killed in the senate races. Spin it as you may like, but it was a devastating defeat. Also, look at the southern and midwest states that voted againsit us overwhelmingly, Clearly there is a message in that. Our party has fallen outside the mainstream. Argue against me if you like, but you cannot deny that we are slowly shrinking towards nothing more than an opposition party.

We have lost 5 out of the last 7 elections.

What more needs to be said?

And in those losses, we lost by nominated mostly liberals. Learn your lessons my fellow democrats, learn your lessons.

Bush increased his vote among woman, increased his vote among african americans, increased among hispanics, increased among asian americans

We can argue how or by what means, but we need to rethink our message clearly.


I for one agree that we need to stop promotiong a big government philospophy. Dont focus on universal healthcare that would require too much money, focus on tax relief and benefits to help families afford healthcare. Focus on raising minimum wage more, Focus on economic policies for the working man and small businesses. Your typical working white male is who we need to get in touch with again.

I am going to continue to disagree with you that we lost because we are "too liberal". There are many reasons we lost, and being liberal isn't one of them. I have listed several in previous posts:

- Our candidate didn't know the art of "message" and couldn't communicate his agenda to the American people.
- Our candidate made plenty of campaign blunders as illustrated by a few posts here but particularly in response letting Republicans define him (i.e. the whole swift boat thing)
- Our candidate had a long history in the senate, there is a reason why very few senators have been elected president - voting records

I could go on, but I'd be repeating myself.

We are not losing because we are too "liberal", we are losing because we don't know how to play the game well. The Democrats have to stop trying to be Republican-lite and actually have an identity of their own. They have to stop protecting old social programs like social security and welfare and dare to allow the American people to dream of better solutions. We need to play the game better than the Republicans do and reframe the national discourse in our favor.

If we take the lessons learned from this election and decide to move to the center, we may as well just disband the party and let one half become Republicans and the other half join any number of independent parties.

The Republicans are changing too, by heading to the right and departing from their traditionally fiscally conservative ways. If we want to make a comeback we do two things:
1. Push fiscally conservative policies to court moderates and independents.
2. Correctly frame a progressive social agenda and sell it to the American people.

In my opinion TD you are expressing a defeatist attitude and assuming that because we lost, the American people have somehow completely rejected our agenda. That is patently false, in fact Bush's margin of victory for an incumbent president was the second closest in history. To me that doesn't say that we are ideologically flawed, it says that we didn't bring our "A game" when it mattered.

well you said we lost because of not being able to articulate a message. I am saying that we need a better message to win. Liberals do not win national elections is my belief. Mcgovern and dukkais had a message, but they got creamed. Its not in my view so much about articulating a message, more or less it is changing the message to something that better represents our beliefs, and can resonate with the rest of the country that we are not reaching.

I dont understand why moving to the center is a bad idea to you. Would you prefer we move farther to left and become a version of the greens?


It is okay for us to disagree on this, what is good is that we recognize problems and want to see the party do a better job of reaching voters.

I will say it again, I do not want to become a republican lite party. It is however naive to think that we can win with a liberal no matter how clear the message is. I think we need to do a better job of stressing our beliefs of equality in terms of race, education, and economically without being divisive, and promising oodles of socialistic policies. I have personally benefited from affirmative action, and even I recognize the program needs some reform. That is not by any means to say it does not work, it perhaps could just be re-defined so single white woman are not receiving more of the benefits than african americans or hispanics.


Like someone before me mentioned, policies of pro small business growth, tax relief for education and healthcare instead of handouts, and increased emphasis on minimum wage for those struggling are winning issues for the party. I just think we need to be more identified as people of values for the working class and the poor again, instead of a laundry list of social program promises.

Also, i think kerry being a liberal did hurt. Look at 92 and 96, and before that with carter, we were able to win in Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, Colorado, Virginina, West Virgina, Louisiana, Arizona, etc etc.. if not win, at least be very very competitive in these states. And nominating a liberal doesnt effect the social conservatism in these areas? I mean, c'mon man. you know it affects us harshly in these areas.

I saw a map on msnbc news, all the rural counties in america, it looked like a big sea of red. That is precisely the problem i am alluding to.


Feel free to disagree, but this is in no way a suggestion of being like the republicans.

In general, I think it's too early to be calculating strategy for 2008. I do, however, think that Bush will move so far to the right in his second term, that the middle might go to Democrats by default.

So, the trick may well be building a coalition slightly left of center. Who would be able to do this or just how it could be done is the question.

I think it is incorrect to say that liberals don't win national elections. The values liberals hold dear can resonate with middle America if we could actually get someone that knew how to sell them. As an example, I'll demonstrate a liberal value that could easily be sold to America.

The Environment - Protection of the environment is and has been a liberal value. The problem with it is that many of the groups people think represent the environment are extremist groups. Saying that PETA generally represents most liberals is the same as saying that nuts who shoot abortion doctors represent most conservatives. The problem here, as with most things is image and we have allowed the Republicans to frame the debate in their advantage.

So, as Democrats we should promote this liberal value by having an agressive environmentally friendly program that doesn't completely cripple corporate america. You cannot tell me that middle america doesn't care what condition we leave this world in for our children. Their concern is that it'll cost jobs and there is of course the image problem. When you say environment they picture hippie tree huggers and PETA folks throwing paint on fur coats - that isn't what we are about.

At the same time we'd need to expose the fact that the Republicans are gutting the environment by weakening legislation, giving corporations a break, etc.

Now I know that the environment isn't an issue that resonates strongly with most people, but it is clearly a "liberal" value and it was easy for me to illustrate it. What we need to do is just go down the hit list of every issue out there: civil rights, medicare, welfare, social security, education, etc and do exatcly the same thing but in a very detailed fashion. We need an answer and in most cases serious reform for almost all of these.

The Democrats have to be presenting a vision of the future and they have to inspire people. When people are inspired and can see you have a clear plan to accomplish your vision, you'll get their vote. None of that involves compromising liberal values and retreating to the center. It is all a question of who is the better salesman. This past election, George W. Bush was apparently the better salesman. It doesn't always have to be that way.

I even saw that coming as the campaign progressed. Kerry had some great opportunities to really sell his plan and at the same time hammer Bush on his failures and he squandered them time and time again. Several times I was sitting in my living room cursing at the TV about it. If you continually make mistakes and miss opportunities then you simply don't deserve to win.

All I am saying is that we cannot afford another visual like this on election day.


go look at this link from USA TODAY


http://images.usatoday.com/news/politicsel...4countymap3.gif


You see the middle of the country? Where is all the blue? this is the heartland of america, if we cant appeal to the center of this great nation, we are in trouble. I agree no matter the message however, we need a leader who is insipring and can deliver the message without getting killed on the wedge issues and appearing soft on important issues to rural voters such as crime, terrorism, etc.. We need to not get too discouraged, and continue to fight for what we believe in. The trick is, finding common ground on that subject regarding who we are as democrats, and what we all can agree on as goals.



However, I really think that many of the far left supporters of kerry or ones who hate bush have given the party a bad name; definately have done more harm than good.

Check out this link for more of what i am refering to.

Here is a chunk of kerry's supporters in liberal land san fransicso.

(From a liberal leaning newspaper site)


http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/

Someone explain to me how that kind of anti american activity isnt harmful to us?

And that kind of map is misleading, because it counts land mass as more important than population. Winning an election is a simple matter of geography and math. There are some very populous states out there with a lot of electoral votes. If you win them, you win the election. I could care less what people in Oklahoma think about the Democrats. What I care about (given our current system) is the Northeast, the West Coast and places like Ohio, Florida and the midwest.

This is a map that carlitoswhey shared with me, and it is a little more accurate as far as interpreting the counties we won - map.

Re: the protest pictures. You can't be serious with that, there were tons of people angry about the results of the election and these people chose to express themselves in the manner they did as is guaranteed by the Constitution. Are you trying to suggest that protest isn't American DT? Often times the people on the opposite side of the message don't like what they are hearing, that should be no surprise in a protest. If you have ever been to one (on either side of the political aisle), this kind of display shouldn't be shocking to you.

And to make things worse, you are trying to paint the entire liberal ideology as evil with your generalizations. You will notice that a good number of those people are anarchists, not exactly people that I would consider part of the Democratic party or the liberal ideology. We have enough people on the right trying to define us by the extremist elements that align themselves with us, do you really think it is productive to help them out?

Oh and as an aside, these people don't represent San Francisco either. I'd suggest not making generalizations about a place you haven't lived in. And I am making an assumption here, but an educated one. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

That is the kind of thinking that is dangerous. That is too narrow a path to the whitehouse. Without the south, we are maxing out around 285-290, and thats if we can win florida or ohio. Please do no be so quick to judge the south as irrelevant. Guess how many demcorats have won an election without winning a soutern state? ZERO. Its that kind of northern mentality that hurts democrats down here. You seem like a smart and good natured democrat, and im sure you dont have any anger towards the south, but I urge you not to dismiss it, historically, we need some southern states to be in control of the white house.

On a personal note, I admire what you are doing for AIDS, and will be making a personal donation very shortly. I realise my example of that rally was an exgaration, i was simply proving a point that the far left crowd that calls bush a terrorist and a murderer do not help our cause.

In regards to the south, we arent gonna alabama or missippi, I am more refering to Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee, Virgina, North Carolina. It is inexcusable not to be competitive there. We have great demcorat operations on the ground here in Tennessee. We just need a candidate who will actually visit us down here and make the republicans sweat.

there is 11 EV's here, there is 6 in AK, there is 11 in Lousianna, do not forget about us.

We can put the party over the top.

If I have lead you to believe that we should ignore the south, I apologize for that. That isn't what I'm trying to say. What I was trying to say is that being liberal isn't a bad thing and if we can successfully take that word back then some of the people in southern states might find they agree with many of our positions. But it is very important to take a hard look at the party platform, because it definitely needs improvement. We need to talk to people and find out what the real issues are and come up with innovative solutions. That also means we need to consider getting rid of some of the big government programs that aren't effective too.


Thanks And I would very much agree with you that there are elements of the left wing that give the rest of us a bad name. At the same time I don't believe those people should be silenced, they are exercising their Constitutional rights to speak. How the Democratic party should counter it is to prove with action, not words that we don't all buy into that.

When people hit us with the "far left" attack, we should have a platform powerful enough to counter it and make it an ineffective attack. The attack works right now precisely because the platform is weak and because this last election was basically conducted with an ABB mentality for a lot of folks.


That is also true, and I think that there are a lot of places the very diverse Democratic party can meet in the middle on and appeal to these voters. But most importantly, we need to redefine ourselves such that our programs appeal to everyone as well.

If we want to know where to go from here, take a look at this transcript from the O'Reiley Factor On Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,138135,00.html

This is what I have been saying for days now. The far left of michael moore, and george soros cost us big time. People do not like being lectured and told who to vote for.


We cant forget about the left by any means, but we need to realise the center is the key to national success; the left is but a minority coming along for the ride.

Harsh? Maybe. But it is true, and there is something for everyone in the party as it is.

We just need to be wiser in our direction and vision.

First, why would we want to put in place anything that O'reilly suggests? The man is about as right wing as they come, and something tells me that neither he, nor FOX News has the best interests of the Democratic party at heart. We will not and cannot just give up and become Republicans.

Secondly, regarding the "People do not like being lectured and told who to vote for" comment: How are the Republicans and right wing talking heads innocent of this again?

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.

Just came across a great link to a great article. Had to share it with ya'll.

“If a company like General Motors had the same image problem that the Democratic Party does, they would fire the guys responsible,” Gerstein told me. But not Democrats. “We don't just hire those guys,” Gerstein said, “we give them bonuses.”


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/...1.sullivan.html

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!

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.

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

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.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

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!

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:


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.

L