Democrats need to embrace populism and stop analyzing.

[Cascadian]

This is part of the problem. If the Democrats are going to win anything in 2004, all of these analyzing and rationalizing everything and trying to go along to get along must stop. Your average Joe Voter does not get it and this is why they are either not voting or moving to the Republicans. All of the focus groups and micro-analyzing and psycho-analzying the issues and putting a spin on them is just as bad as what the Republicans are doing. And in my view, it is also slightly arrogant.

Howard Dean made a good point in when he said he wanted to reach out to the white Southern voter. Even though I wouldn't have used his exact words, but I can understand why he said it. It is just an example that many of the Democrats must stop this aloof, I am smarter than you, and we must focus on the issues and rationalize attitude. Nobody can be a Political Science major!


There needs to be movement to try to reach out those blue collar types. Those who voted for the Republicans. The Democrats must convince them that the Democrats are working in their best interests in plain straight-forward language. Democrats must get down and dirty against the Republicans.

John

[AlinPA]

1. And just pound on Bush

Get tough. Straight talk.

[Cascadian]

3. Exactly

Don't play around with the issues!


John

[Cocoa]

6. you want even less substance in our politics?

is that possible?

Which is better for the dems vs. the republicans, a campaign based on empty slogans and fake issues like flag burning, or one based on real issues that affect voters?

[Cascadian]

7. They should keep with the issues but....

don't try to analyze every dratted thing. Give them the issues, the problems, the ideas, and solutions in a language they will understand.
And do it without going over their heads.

John

[Cocoa]

2. all the candidates seem to be very class-conscious

I hear a lot of talk about Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, etc.

Who is being too intellectual?

[JanMichael]

4. I agree completely. We should be the lead Swallow that leaves the line.

The others will follow.

What disturbs me is how many "Leaders" straddle the line and don't lead anyone anywhere.

Get off the LINE!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. why would "blue collar types" vote for Dean?

Since Dean pushed NAFTA which cost them their jobs? Well, they will certainly vote for Dean over Bush I would think, no doubt about that.

"There needs to be movement to try to reach out those blue collar types."

You should start one.

[w4rma]

11. pushED (n/t)

[HereSince1628]

8. Ok we've got your thesis

And everyone is entitled to an opinion. But now would be a really good time to demonstrate that it is informed. Let me help you by suggesting a visit to the new democrats webpage to get some ammunition.

I would suggest that a party has cohesion only as much as it can articulate a coherent, integrated philosophy. The third way is to wet your finger and go in the direction the wind is blowing. The assumption of that approach seems to be based on winning the mythic swing/independent voters. But voter turn out suggests that the latent mass of potential voters is democratic. Perhaps the way to motivate their turn out, which would assure a democratic victory, is to move away from the vanilla/almost republican center and provide them an opportunity to vote for something they think will move America toward agenda items they feel are important.

[quaker bill]

9. Right ,

but I think what he is saying is that we need to distill it down to the 'take home message'.

There is nothing wrong with intellectual policy analysis. But when you are on the stump, plain speech is in order.

Remember, it is a statistical identity that half of the population is possessed of less than average intellect. To win an election, we need our message to also appeal to those with less than a post-secondary education. Like it or not.

[Cascadian]

10. kicking this up.

n/t