« Election Depression Relief... | Main | The book on the new Attorney General »
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Republican Noise Machine Never Stopped - Ours Has
Posted by Tim TagarisThe ink was barely dry on our paper(less) ballots cast on voting machines across the country and the constant refrain from Republican operatives was that election results manifested a "mandate" for the President. Or as Atrios likes to call it, a Man Date. Bloomberg news was even claiming a "popular vote mandate" at 9:45 AM on the 3rd.
In case we didn't learn about Republican message amplification through repition during the election, let this serve as State's Exhibit #2. Despite the fact there was no overwhelming disparity in percentage, Republicans are running around "with their hair on fire" screaming "mandate" to anyone who will listen. And of course, people are buying.
Since the concession speeches were made, the Republican noise machine has declared the election results have given the President the go ahead from the public for tax code reform and social security reform/privitization. Maybe I was asleep for the past 8 months, but where did those issues come from? If the President has a mandate for anything, and that's if 51% is the low-bar for mandates now adays, it's to keep our country safe, continue his flawed policy in Iraq, some tort reform, and to preserve the "sanctity of marriage."
I personally don't remember hearing much out of him about tax or social security reform during the campaign. That is, until his "gaffe" about social security privitization in the closing week. He has wasted no time in continuing the flawed policy in Iraq, and most suggest that the real "reform" will occur after the lame duck session, when Republicans have a greater majority in both Houses of the Congress.
With his new "mandate" on securing the sanctity of marriage, I trust the first step will be taking shows like, "The Bachelor," "Who wants to marry a midget," and "trading spouses" off the air.
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is on every channel that will have her, preaching the Gospel of Matthew and the new Democratic Minority Leader in the Senate will likely be Harry Reid of Nevada. Both appear to be part of a concerted effort to move the Party closer to the center, or, Republican-Lite as Al Sharpton likes to call it. The discussion of nominating Howard Dean as Party Chairman highlights the internal struggle for the soul of the party and lack of any clear message thus far.
In the Democratic net-roots, you can hardly escape a blog that isn't littered with discussions of voter fraud or people getting pissed because their favorite bloggers aren't talking about the issue. Meanwhile, some of you might be shocked to know that Republicans bloggers are already at work on 2006. Don't believe me? Well, they are already going after Democratic Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota, and putting netroots infrastructure in place. Check it out HERE.
So as we go into the bottom of the first inning: Republicans 1 - Democrats 0
Posted at 08:20 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
If one accepts that Republican Senate "gains" were mostly just the final realignement of the deeper south, there's quite a few vulnerable northern Republicans.
More importantly, what can we do to get Howard Dean elected DNC chair? I don't know that I'd support him in '08 for Pres (I KNOW I wouldn't support Hillary Clinton) but I really feel he has what it takes to get back the soul of our party. In the past we had excuses not to have a cohesive value system -- after all, FDR united all kinds of constituencies. But its about time we got past this, and about time we quit the rhetorical bows to organized interest groups and insead built a broad center-left coalition. Does anyone know how the DNC chair is picked and if registered Dems have influence?
Posted by: Marc at November 9, 2004 11:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Don't underestimate Hillary. Before she decided to run for senate in NY, many predicted she would fail. She like Bill seems to know how to run a campaign. If she decides to run for prez in 2008, she will be able to raise lots of money. I think she is more disciplined than Bill Clinton.
I don't like a senator to run for prez because of their voting records. Senators vote on many bills so it is difficult to defend your votes as we witnessed this year w/ Kerry. Your opponent will be able to distort your records easily.
I hope we choose a DNC chair quickly then get on with the task of rebuilding the grassroots for 2006 and 2008. I also hope DNC will take control of the GOTV effort. ACT and other orgs helped this year but it was scattered and confusing. We have plenty of volunteers but we need DNC to organize it.
Money should not a a problem as we saw this year.
Posted by: pat at November 10, 2004 03:18 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Unfortunately, I think money IS the big problem with the DNC taking over the ground game and grassroots activism. Think of all the money spent on the ground by ACT and MoveOn.
It is my fondest hope that the netroots will step up and take a larger role in organizing activism across the country. Or, at the very least, the DNC creates/uses available technologies to improve organization.
One of the greatest benefits to electing Dean as DNC Chairman would be a leader willing to explore the new technology and its potential implications for the grassroots. He took it to a certain point, but am not sure how effective the Dean campaign was when it came down to organization.
Tim
Posted by: Tim T. at November 10, 2004 03:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Howard Dean is a terrible choice to run the DNC for you Dems. Dean's message will not win over more voters to your side. A better choice would be someone like Bill Clinton who appeals to the masses. I know his health is not the best but you will surely lose to us again with a choice like Dean.
Posted by: Pete at November 10, 2004 06:02 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
It was widely believed that Hillary Clinton's Republican opponent in 2000 would be Rudy Giuliani. At the last minute, Rudy decided not to run, allegedly due to his health. Rick Lazio jumped in at the last minute. Even I might have voted for Lazio if my overriding concern was not keeping a Democrat in the Senate. Hillary might have great fundraising capabilities but that doesn't matter if she has high unfavorables off the bat. Generous donors still only have one vote.
As for Howard Dean, I am one of those who thought he would be unelectable as president. That does not mean he is a bad choice for DNC chair. The public face of the party is not a candidate. I don't recall hearing many attacks against Marc Racicot or Terry Macauliffe personally. However if President Clinton wants the job we should grab him!
I also agree with Pat that a governor is a much better candidate than a senator, especially one with a 20 year record. Actually, men with very little history at all to explain/defend seem to make better candidates than those with political experience.
Posted by: Sue at November 10, 2004 06:22 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Bill Clinton would also be a good chair. He'd bring a high profile to the position. The Clintons were for Clark, however we take that. I agree with Sue -- DNC chair isn't the candidate and isn't very visible. As for Howard Dean's message -- the whole problem, as I found out, is Joe Trippi (who apparently Dean would rarely speak to face-to-face) influenced him to come across as very liberal. Dean would be a good, energetic startegist who takes a tough stand. On issues, he's always been a moderate -- improving access to health care, esp. for kids and moms but not calling for national health care; supporting gay union, which Cheney and now Bush support; and fighting for balanced budgets. Fiscal sanity could be a key Democratic core value that sets us apart from the other guys. Yes, as a candidate, Dean would have to deal with him image and that's why I think DNC chair is the place for him. The one pitfall I can see -- I was in Iowa for Kerry and the Dena supporters jsut didn't connect -- I was at a caucus in a working class neighborhood where the Dean folks sent an artsy older guy from Manhattan with a rasputin-style goatee.
Posted by: Marc at November 10, 2004 09:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
THe strength of our party guys is the issues. Economy, healthcare and social security. However what the republicans have successfully done is wage a cultural war in which we have to think twice before asserting that Howard Dean would make an effective DNC leader. What we have basically said is that we must move to the "center" literally and forget about the Northeast, WestCoast, and North west. I dont buy it for 1 second Tim and Marc. We must stand our ground and hope for 2 things.
1. The people in the midwest will start to vote their pocketbooks beginning in 2006 after the record deficit begins to erode the economy.
2. Hope that people in the south and Midwest begin to realize that democrates our for the working class and that even though they may be from the northeast our west coast we still have the poor and middle classes best interest at hand.
Until this happens guys, this culture war pitting The confederate vs the union; red state vs blue state will win over. It's fustrating how the republicans have seemed to succeed in the shorterm and all we can hope for is their demize.
Any comments....
Posted by: godfrey at November 10, 2004 10:57 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Tim, I don't know that people vote their pocket book per se -- the evidence points to people voting their identity and values. I think pocketbook issues are part of values. At the same time, its often hard to directly link elections to my pocketbook, and it is open to debate whether specific liberal policies benefit the middle class. Are upper-middle-class liberals voting their pocketbook only? I would guess in part yes b/c deficits, underinvestment in public health and infrastructure, etc. will be detrimental in the long- to medium term. I think we need to define a set of values that is basically center-left: a vibrant market economy that also provides all with health insurance (not necessarily thru national health care), decent wages, a right to unionize, enough vacation time, and makes education, quality of life, and a clena environment priorities.
As I've said, I disagree with 3 ideas I hear a lot:
1) we need to move right and become more like republicans (NO)
2) we need to move left and embrace old-school liberalism and core constituencies
3) we need to somehow appeal to fundamentalists and confederate flag wavers, rather than mainstream religious voters and the new south
I think we need to define a progressive center of our party (NOT the center of the electorate) with a clear value system and associated policies; then take a strong stand based on this .... with this I think we can hold on to the midwest, win Ohio, make inroads in VA, CO, etc.
what do you think?
Posted by: Marc at November 10, 2004 12:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I guess I won't get too excited over John Ashcroft's resignation just yet. Alberto Gonzales, the rumored replacement, doesn't sound promising (link below). Anyone here, know any more about this guy?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_cabinet
Posted by: WisVoter at November 10, 2004 12:37 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
godfrey, I read an interesting article last month profiling the Scots-Irish ethnic demographic, which dominates the political landscape in most red regions east of the Mississippi River, and some west of it as well. While such a broad outline of any demographic is prone to stereotype (my girlfriend is Scots-Irish, but a liberal Democrat), its main themes definitely seemed consistent with modern political reality.
Most Southerners I have any sort of contact with, be it personal or via country music which I've always enjoyed until its recent right-wing shift, simply refuse to be concerned with issues relevant to their own finances, the country's finances or the nation's domestic well being. They take pride in their work and hold far more indignation for their workplace inferiors than superiors, thus scoffing at unionization and applauding the strictest and cruelest imaginable welfare reform legislation. In certain sections of the South, free trade has actually been an economic boon, drawing in Asian automakers eager to seize the region's non-union workforce and their states' willingness to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in freebies to attract new business. The resurrection of the Cold War-era military-industrial complex, based primarily in the South, is likely to put a number of currently unemployed NASCAR dads back to work and further erode the effectiveness of selling meat-and-potato issue concerns to the populationally significant red states.
The bottom line is that I think the South (with possible exceptions of Arkansas and Louisiana, but only rarely) is lost for a generation. Blue-state culture is growing continually "metro" while red-state culture is growing continually "retro". As long as these differences not only exist but continue to widen, the Scots-Irish vote extending from central Pennsylvania to southwest Missouri with almost everyplace in between, will continue to shrug off the significance of every issue dear to people like ourselves while continuing to write country songs about God "giving up on us" because one court from San Francisco wants to take "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Posted by: Mark at November 10, 2004 12:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
godfrey, I read an interesting article last month profiling the Scots-Irish ethnic demographic, which dominates the political landscape in most red regions east of the Mississippi River, and some west of it as well. While such a broad outline of any demographic is prone to stereotype (my girlfriend is Scots-Irish, but a liberal Democrat), its main themes definitely seemed consistent with modern political reality.
Most Southerners I have any sort of contact with, be it personal or via country music which I've always enjoyed until its recent right-wing shift, simply refuse to be concerned with issues relevant to their own finances, the country's finances or the nation's domestic well being. They take pride in their work and hold far more indignation for their workplace inferiors than superiors, thus scoffing at unionization and applauding the strictest and cruelest imaginable welfare reform legislation. In certain sections of the South, free trade has actually been an economic boon, drawing in Asian automakers eager to seize the region's non-union workforce and their states' willingness to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in freebies to attract new business. The resurrection of the Cold War-era military-industrial complex, based primarily in the South, is likely to put a number of currently unemployed NASCAR dads back to work and further erode the effectiveness of selling meat-and-potato issue concerns to the populationally significant red states.
The bottom line is that I think the South (with possible exceptions of Arkansas and Louisiana, but only rarely) is lost for a generation. Blue-state culture is growing continually "metro" while red-state culture is growing continually "retro". As long as these differences not only exist but continue to widen, the Scots-Irish vote extending from central Pennsylvania to southwest Missouri with almost everyplace in between, will continue to shrug off the significance of every issue dear to people like ourselves while continuing to write country songs about God "giving up on us" because one court from San Francisco wants to take "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
Posted by: Mark at November 10, 2004 12:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Mark can you explain two points dealing with the strategy used by the Kerry campaign during this past election?
1) Why did the Kerry team abandon Missouri? Especially with the large union strong holds of St. Louis and Kansas City.
2) WHat the hell went wrong in OHIO? The Kerry team spent so much time and money trying to capture the states 20 electoral votes and they still couldn't manage to capture the states 20 electoral votes. What's so fustrating about Ohio is that Bush didn't campaign there for 10 days and encouraged the outscoring of 250,000 jobs yet still won the state.
Posted by: godfrey at November 10, 2004 03:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
godfrey, I wish I had the answers. I agree that Kerry pulled out of Missouri too early, but given the state's current demographics, it seems as though it would have been a very difficult place for him to win. Gore did about as good as could be expected in metropolitan Kansas City and metropolitan St. Louis four years ago....and he still lost the state by 80,000 votes. Even if Kerry had hit the state hard in the fall, he would have needed to move beyond KC and STL if he intended to seize 80,000 additional votes. That would send him to smaller cities like Columbia and St. Joseph that have been trending Republican (like everyplace else in MO in between the metro areas) and where piecing together enough support to narrow the 2000 gap would have been nearly impossible. In retrospect, Kerry probably had no chance anywhere south of the Ohio River this year, and the fact that Missouri went redder this time than last is a good indication that it was the right move to direct resources elsewhere.
As for Ohio, it also appears to have simply not been an option for John Kerry. Even many of the regions where job losses were the most dramatic either just as strongly for Bush as last time or went barely Kerry (Stark County, Steubenville). The Scots-Irish vote I eluded to in my previous post includes the Appalachain region of Ohio, and job losses simply are not as important there as abortion, gay marriage and school prayer. The British newspaper's attempt to influence voters in Clark County in southwestern Ohio also backfired, predictably, as that Gore county turned red this time. Kerry made nice gains in the Columbus area and modest gains in the northeast and even in the Cincinnati area, but it clearly was not enough to seal the deal. I had always expected Kerry would win Ohio in a close election. Perhaps it'll be winnable in another four years if Columbus and Cincinnati continue to move leftward...but by then, tragically, irreparable damage will be done.
Posted by: Mark at November 10, 2004 03:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
godfrey --
no idea, I'm jsut a pean (sp?)who came out for the caucus. I was a bit dumbfounded from the beginning that the natl convention was in Boston and not Columbus, OH (my pick) or St Louis or something ... we should've invested enough in Ohio to win, and been there two-three years before pushing electoral reform via ballot initiative so as not to have all these long lines. Even right-wing commentators those last 10 days were givign up Ohio for lost, which encouraged me to hope. Was there even early voting in OH?
I read one article once about adopting an "Ohio strategy" to keep the Dems in the White House, rather than trying to win the south.
Posted by: Marc at November 10, 2004 03:50 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
I always felt the locations for both conventions were dumb decisions. The Dems in Boston just emphasized the "northeast liberal" term. I understand that Kerry wasn't the clear nominee or even close to it when the choice was made. Even with someone else, it would have emphasized the Democrats reliance on the NE. A site in OH, PA, MI, MN, WI, IL, IA, etc...
At least the Republicans got to talk about 9/11 for four days. With all of that talk, we could only partially hear all of the jokes about how badly all of the Democrats in the city wanted all those Republicans out.
Posted by: Dan Hogan at November 10, 2004 06:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
If the Republicans try to replace the income tax with a 23% sales tax, then they will be voted out in droves in 2006. If they try to pass a flat tax, it will also mean higher taxes for most Americans and the Republicans will be voted out in droves.
At some point, Bush will have to face the reality of the mess he has created with the federal budget. He can't continue to have record spending increases, record budget deficits, and tax decreases without consequences. The first consequence has been the devaluation of the dollar. At some point international investors who fund our deficits are going to stop investing. They are losing tons of money due to the dollar devaluation. If they pull out, interest rates are going to rise as the federal government will have to give increasing returns to borrow money. That will kill the housing market. The housing market has been the only thing propping up this dismal economy.
Posted by: DFuller at November 10, 2004 11:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
We need to reinvent the Democratic Party. A lot of what happens in 2008 depends on the candidates each party chooses. The Republicans will probably have a strict conservative, since you can't win their primary as a moderate. We need to get a moderate candidate.
We also need to do a better job in blue states as far as the Senate goes. We need to point out that while some of these NE states might have moderate Republicans, what they are really voting for is Tom Delay. Look at what happened to Arlen Specter. He is a moderate, he spoke his mind, and the righties are killing him. We need to tattoo it on everyone's brain that the moderate Republican has no power and that if you vote for a moderate Republican, you are empowering the extremist right wing of the country. Then, hopefully we can win some Senate seats held by Republicans in blue states and/or get people like Lincoln Chafee to switch parties (I really think if the Senate were 50-50, he would have switched parties. The Democratic Party has so little power, he would have been insane to switch at this point).
Posted by: Sam at November 10, 2004 11:41 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sepcter would be good example for us to use in the NE. Tell people like Chaffee, switch or we'll take you down.
I wonder how the Republicans will fo in '08. My guess is right now the fudnamentalists are so energized they will be able to set the agenda, and their win this year will mute their opponents. SPecter barely hung on this yr, getting 51% in the primary. What if (when) things get bad under Bush's watch -- will the fundamentalists be weakened? or will they say, now we need a real conservative christian, not someone with neoconservatives and big business whispering in his ear?
Posted by: Marc at November 11, 2004 10:19 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
The problem for Democrats is that there are numerous small states that are heavily Republican and return Republican in Presidential races by 20% or so. Even a moderate to conservative Democrat thus has trouble surviving here.
By contrast, there are few very reliable Democratic states. MA, RI, NY, VT, HI, CA, NJ, CT (although Hi, CT and NJ were closer this year). And even then only MA , RI, NY are likely to return the sort of majorities that Repubs get in Idaho, the Dakotas etc.
And all of those states have Democratic Senators except Chafee.
Consider Maine. Its a medimum blue state, so 2 moderate Republicans can remain Senators there. They're hard to uproot because Maine is only medium democratic. As for PA, its very light blue. I really don't see a chance of uprooting Santorum, much as I would like to see that.
Posted by: erg at November 11, 2004 11:39 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Unless you can replace a moderate Republican with a moderate Democrat, the idea of going after the Repubican may backfire. If we are seen as targeting a person just because they wouldn't join us sounds immature at best. The only way I'd do it is if that person doesn't represent their district well (electorate is more to the left than he is). Otherwise, I would take on any of the ultra-conservatives where there is a chance they may be replaced in the primaries by a 'lesser evil.' Getting a guy to vote with you 20% of the time is better than never at all...
Posted by: Dan Hogan at November 11, 2004 12:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Dan,
I guess one good option is to run a moderate-left Democrat who may not be very different from someone like Chaffee (who voted against the war resolution) but who wouldn't be voting for the leadership of the Senate and wouldn't be pressured by his or her party to support things like deficit spending. Make it a referendum on which party you want leading America -- especially if the Democrats are pushing a broad agenda like health care for all kids, a sane foreign policy, and environmental progress.
Posted by: Marc at November 11, 2004 01:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
dan hogan is an ass
Posted by: cody at November 11, 2004 03:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
dan hogan is an ass
Posted by: cody at November 11, 2004 03:13 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Some of us have been saying that we need moderate faces for the party in the DNC chair and Senate minority leader. Maybe that's not exactly what we need. Maybe what we need is people who can be respected by moderates and who moderates are willing to listen to. McAuliffe always struck me as the guy who would continue to argue his side even if he knew it was a loosing arguement. It may not be entirely fair, but that was the impression that I got whenever I heard him interviewed. This is one area where I think Dean just excels. I saw McAuliffe and Ed Gillespe debate the election problems before any of the votes were in and it seemed like McAuliffe just wanted to win any way he could. He had nothing to say when he was asked about dead people voting or people voting twice. Giving me that impression isn't going to hurt anybody in blue, but I don't want to think about how moderates who were making the Democrats vs Republicans decision were taking it.
I can't say that I watched Dean all that closely during the primaries, but I do get the feeling that he would have handled that situation and all of the others just like it much better. I think most viewers would have walked away thinking that Dean honestly wanted to find solutions so we all would have a process that we have faith in. I imagine he would have said something like: "As DNC chair, I have a responsibility to protect our party's voters, so I focus on those issues when looking at the election process. If the Republicans can come up with a reasonable solution to their concerns regaring fraudulent voting, I would gladly support it." Hearing that, I think most moderates would have respected it and would have one less reason not to vote for their local Democrat (who I suggest should be moderate or moderate-left in cases where the districts are well-balanced).
Now, on to "cody"... If you are a Republican, you have just helped a little more to solidify the stereotype I have for the conservatives these days: simplify the discussion so you sound like you are right that way your supporters don't have to think real hard.
If you are a Democrat, you're not doing your job, man! This election brought more new people into the political process than any recent election. There is this whole new group of people that are more involved than they were before whether it is volunteering, posting on boards like these, or just simply voting at all. When you see or hear guys who are more involved than they ever have been before, like me, you have to do your part to bring us into the fold and keep us there. Just 6 months ago, my only interest was to cast my vote on Nov 2 and watch from the sidelines any other day. Now, I want to do my part to further the Democrats' cause. A comment that strikes you as being dumb may just be comming from one of those intelligent people who has never been involved before. You know all of those new votes that gave Kerry the second highest vote total in election history? You have to keep them around. If you keep calling them asses, they'll just go back to the sidelines and never be heard from again.
-Dan (the ass) Hogan
Posted by: Dan Hogan at November 11, 2004 10:58 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment