Campaign 2008: Democrats Must Work Smart

[The Straight Story]

Campaign 2008: Democrats Must Work Smart
By BOB BURNETT News Analysis

In Silicon Valley folklore, a typical project goes through five stages: unwarranted enthusiasm, unmitigated disaster, search for the guilty, persecution of the innocent, and promotion of the uninvolved. Evidently, the Kerry-Edwards “project” has advanced to the fourth stage where many, including Berkeley’s MoveOn.org, are being blamed for the Nov. 2 loss.

If Democrats are to learn the difficult lessons from the defeat, they are going to have to stop whining; quit claiming that they lost because Republicans cheated or because certain individuals or groups were incompetent. Democrats need to face reality: Republicans won because they ran a better campaign; one where the GOP made fewer mistakes and did a superb job of getting out their base. Democrats worked hard, but did not, alas, work smart.

There are five big lessons to be learned from the Kerry defeat. Democrats must take in each of these lessons if they are going to work smart in the future.

Lesson one is that the Democratic Presidential candidate must be perceived as authentic; someone who is not easily typecast as a free-spending liberal or a member of the cultural elite. Neither John Kerry nor Al Gore was seen as authentic, but Bill Clinton was; and many contemporary Democrats, from Barney Frank to Nancy Pelosi, are viewed as authentic by their constituencies.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article.cfm?issue=12-28-04&storyID=20413

[zulchzulu]

1. BBV/electronic voting is Mission One for 2008

The Dems did just fine...if anything, it was one of the most exciting elections I've ever worked with or for.

No matter how well the Dems do with organizing, GOTV and other efforts, if black box voting and similar defects in electronic voting are not taken care of, it is going to be the same result.

[The Straight Story]

2. Totally Agree with your assesment (n/t)

[InvisibleBallots]

3. Dean is considered authentic

Not sure if he can win an election, but few doubt his authenticity - even Republicans.

Lesson two is that a successful Democratic presidential candidate must run as an unabashed economic populist. In 2000 Al Gore seemed to be embracing this as the centerpiece of his campaign, “They’ re for the powerful, and we’ re for the people,” but inexplicably backed away. In 2004 the Kerry-Edwards campaign flirted with populism, most notably in John Edward’s evocation of the “two Americas,” only to retreat into wonkdom. Once again, most of the new Democratic victors won because they espoused a basic populist message, for example, Obama in his rousing keynote address at the Democratic convention, “it’s not enough for just some of us to prosper. For alongside our famous individualism, there’s another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people.

DING DING DING DING DING

[saracat]

4. There is an element of truth here, except we probably didn't lose.

We could have won definitively, though, making it harder to hack! I don't think the DLC,. DNC and the Clintonista allowed Kerry to be authentic. I think he is, but they muddied the waters trying to get the nonexistent "undecided" and "moderate" vote.He should have been allowed to take his own stances, liberal or not . We must stop people pleasing codependency. That is what is unauthentic!

[OhioBlue]

5. I totally agree w/ you

Let the candidate be themselves. Soooo many people I know voted for * and I think could have been swayed (beleive me - I tried) They would've welcomed a candidate that didn't seem so scripted.

Also - we seriously have to look at the voting system. From what I've heard, all of Ohio will need to go to electronic voting before the next election. If so, I'm afraid it won't matter.

[OneBlueSky]

6. "quit claiming that they lost because Republicans cheated " . . .

well, there's a bit of a problem with this . . . because the Republicans DID cheat, and if we ignore that fact we do so at our peril . . . in 2008, EVERY state will have electronic voting -- with no paper trails, and controlled by Republican corporations . . . unless that changes, we have NO chance of winning the presidency, because they'll just do what they did this year . . . and in 2002 . . . and in 2000 . . . and with a Republican Congress doing BushCo's bidding, the chances of meaningful election reform are slim and none . . .

the only way we'll ever win another election is if there is a fair and open electoral process . . . and that will only come about if there is a MASSIVE movement by American voters to demand it . . . given that most don't believe this election was stolen, the chances of that happening are also slim and none . . .

as it stands right now, Democrats will never again win the presidency . . . we could run Jesus Christ himself in 2008, and we still wouldn't win . . . too liberal, don'tcha know . . . I hope something will happen to change things, but the Democratic Party has little power and even less courage . . . we live in a one-party state where elections are completely under their control, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it . . .

[Still_Loves_John]

7. I agree with most of it

We really DO need to stop pretending we were cheated, especially because every time someone tries to start a meaningful discussion about why we lost the thread gets filled up with a bunch of people who do nothing more than say that we didn't do anything wrong, we were just cheated. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers and your ears and going "la la la," and it brings any kind of real analysis to a screeching halt.

I did like what most of the article said, except for a couple parts, and that might just have sprung from my personal like of Kerry. One is that we need candidates who aren't percieved as too political, like Gore and Kerry were. Now, even though I don't think either of the two was overly poltical, I don't have a problem with the article there, since they were percieved as such. I do have a problem with the idea that it is a problem with our candidates. Before running, both Kerry and Gore had, if anything, reputations for being too earnest; Gore was called the boy scout of the senate. Once the elections began, however, the Republicans successfully painted both of them as liars and devious. Our problem isn't with the candidates themselves, it's presenation. We need to be able to condense our candidates into a soundbite, while at the same time painting a very simple, negative picture of our opponent.

My other little qualm sprung from this same line of reasoning. I really don't think Howard Dean would make a great nominee. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't so much have a problem with him ideologically as I do personally, but I bring it up since he was mentioned in the context of someone to be a fresh, outsider candidate. Truth is, while the people who he did appeal to really liked him, Howard Dean never had a broad base of support. Even then, it's not that I think he would be a horrible candidate, I'm just going back to my last paragraph and saying that our nominees are fine, we just need to present them better.