Calling all armchair strategists.

[Julien Sorel]

Since we have so many brilliant political analysts here, perhaps you can answer some questions that I've been thinking about for a long time.

If only the Republicans had (fill in the blank) in the wake of Watergate, they wouldn't have lost 48 House seats, and 5 Senate seats.

If the Republicans had only (fill in the blank) in the wake of the Depression, they wouldn't have lost 8 Senate seats, and 60 House seats.


It seems we have some very bright people here who are certain the reason the Democrats have been losing ground is because of timid, inept, and brainless leadership; such people are now thunderously shouting that Kerry is drifting down the same path to ignominious defeat. So help a brother out. Compared to analyzing the current election this should be easy, since you have the benefit of hindsight.

[Guaranteed]

1. Well, we had our well-positioned candidate,

with integrity intact, whose name I will not mention, but unfortunately our party passed him over for the sake of a Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Three Purple Hearts.

So, if only...

Whatever. Just don't act like we never had a chance.

[Julien Sorel]

2. Unfortunately, that doesn't even answer my overt question,

let alone the question behind it. That's without snickering at the absurd implication that there was a better candidate. Ooops! I went and did it. At any rate,


Whatever. Just don't act like we never had a chance.

That's the suggestion I'm making to a lot of people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Howard Dean Would Have Been McGovernized By Now

In political terms that means vaporized....

[Julien Sorel]

5. He was McGovernized about halfway through the primary.

The more plugged-in Republicans I know still lament the passing of Dean's candidacy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Demographic Trends Make America A Much Different Country Than 1972

It is more Asian, more African American, more Hispanic but I still think Dean could have least matched Dukakis in electoral futility....

[Guaranteed]

8. You guys are kidding yourselves. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Are We Really.....

Where is the emperical evidence that the Democrats robbed defeat out of the jaws of victory be failing to nominate Howard Dean?

[Cheswick2.0]

78. McGovernized is not a word ot a method of campaigning

it's is a meaningless term.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Well

The assertion embodied in your statement is that Howard Dean would be running a better campaign.....


A dispassionate analayst would say that's a dubious proposition...


And as the son of a World War 2 vet who receieved a Purple Heart for losing the sight of his right eye to shrapnel in the Sicilian Campaign I hope you are not making the suggestion that service to your country is of no great importance....

[Guaranteed]

7. I didn't say that at all.

I'm saying that we chose to hide behind those medals instead of positioning ourselves by the issues- which Dean would have destroyed Bush with. Dean's strengths were Bush's weaknesses, and he had a solid, moderate record to back himself up with. We just acted out of fear, nothing new or surprising.

We've all had this discussion a hundred times before, though. I'm not looking to have it again- we SHOULD be looking forward. I'm just saying that we've had opportunities.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Actually The Dems Had The Best Of Both Worlds In Wes Clark...

A bonafide hero who opposed the invasion from conception but because he was a bit green politically was made to look like he somehow supported it or was ambiguous...



Without speaking to the totality of the Kerry campaign he has not allowed himself to be McGovernized which is political death....

[chuck555]

11. Democrats know how to govern.

In 1929 the market crashed. In 1930 Republicans still held congress.
In 1932 the economy was in a free fall. Hoover was buried in a landslide. The Congress went Democratic.

I could go on,but the fact is that Democrats governed so well that they dominated for so many years.

The real trouble started in 1980. 3 very good Senators,McGovern ,Church, Bayh were defeated by outside money. republicans went Prolife. The NRA got into politics.

And of course Reagan won. As Rosalin Carter said Reagan makes people comfortable with prejudice.
Reagan smiled the sold hate and the bs that the cons were pushing since 1964.
until next time,bye bye.

[Julien Sorel]

12. The onset of the Depression didn't happen until

after the market crash. As for the rest of your post, it had no more to do with my questions than debating the demerits of a Howard Dean candidacy.

[opihimoimoi]

13. Chuck pretty much nailed it. Bayh, Church, etc were defeated by

Pub Targeting. Of the seven Senators in the crosshairs, only Alan Cranston survived.

And the Pub Propaganda Machine became stronger and stronger until we see what is present today....an innate amount of delusion among our good people. Bush can be explained only if "Delusion" is part of the equation.

[ulysses]

14. hey, don't ask me.

I just play checkers.

[Julien Sorel]

15. And yet you kibbitz at chess matches.

[ulysses]

16. yup. it's galling, isn't it?

Imagine having the cheek to actually express an opinion about politics, an activity that is well outside my sanctioned purview as a public school teacher. I should probably be shot.

[Julien Sorel]

19. I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

Death is a little excessive for hypocrisy.

[ulysses]

20. how is expressing an opinion hypocrisy?

Please. I'll await your explanation.

[Julien Sorel]

23. Expressing an opinion is one thing, making a pronouncement,

then hiding behind "Don't ask me, I only play checkers" is another.

[ulysses]

25. I'm not hiding from anything, friend.

We've just had a real-life Strategist from the Kerry campaign come down from Sinai with the earth-shaking news that we need to do something about the media - a bit of advice that has rightfully been met with a response along the lines of "gee, YA THINK?" If that's where we are in the chess match, then maybe we need to get some new blood in the game.

I find your unspoken idea that we (the common folk, ignorant of the great strategic plans being made behind the scenes) should keep our thoughts to ourselves unless we can deconstruct complex political events from the past to be ridiculous.

[Julien Sorel]

29. Of course you're hiding.

I asked a couple of simple questions. Instead of hazarding an answer, you come up with the smarmy "Don't ask me, I only play checkers." Yet you still feel perfectly competent to play the role of campaign strategist.

I find your unspoken idea that we (the common folk, ignorant of the great strategic plans being made behind the scenes) should keep our thoughts to ourselves unless we can deconstruct complex political events from the past to be ridiculous.

I find your straw man argument absurd. My "unspoken idea" is that people here are operating on a false assumption: that this is a game of checkers or chess, where both sides start out more or less equally, and the side that plays better will win. In actual fact, it's more like a game of chess where one side starts a piece or even a rook down, and has to play a flawless game, while hoping their opponent makes a blunder, in order to win. I suppose that's spelling things out about as clearly as can be, but the point will still be missed.

[ulysses]

33. a couple of simple questions...

If only the Republicans had (fill in the blank) in the wake of Watergate, they wouldn't have lost 48 House seats, and 5 Senate seats.

If the Republicans had only (fill in the blank) in the wake of the Depression, they wouldn't have lost 8 Senate seats, and 60 House seats.

I would posit that these are anything but simple questions. Perhaps you'd like to detail your own answers, though.

Instead of hazarding an answer, you come up with the smarmy "Don't ask me, I only play checkers."

I didn't come up with the analogy.

Yet you still feel perfectly competent to play the role of campaign strategist.

Not really, no. I'm a citizen with an opinion. On the other hand, if what's wanted in the position is someone who can figure out that the media is biased, maybe I'm in the wrong line of work...:)

I find your straw man argument absurd. My "unspoken idea" is that people here are operating on a false assumption: that this is a game of checkers or chess, where both sides start out more or less equally, and the side that plays better will win. In actual fact, it's more like a game of chess where one side starts a piece or even a rook down, and has to play a flawless game, while hoping their opponent makes a blunder, in order to win.

Ok, our side has to play, not just a better game, but a *much* better game, to win. Check. We knew that. I have this absurd little idea as well that it would help to not let your opponent define your strategy, but what do I know?

Now, what exactly was your point in asking about the Repubs after the Depression and Watergate if not to suggest that we who are merely mortal don't know enough to hold an opinion?

[Julien Sorel]

37. Stunning.

Now, what exactly was your point in asking about the Repubs after the Depression and Watergate if not to suggest that we who are merely mortal don't know enough to hold an opinion?

Just as I said: the point will be missed, even though I spelled it out.

[ulysses]

38. no, I understood your point re: the chess game.

The question still stands.

[ulysses]

43. I'm going to go spend a little quality time

with Ms Uly - you'll let me know when you get around to answering this, yes?

[Julien Sorel]

54. Asked and answered.

And yet, you haven't. Shocking.

[ulysses]

58. we'll try this again.

What exactly was your point in asking about the Repubs after the Depression and Watergate if not to suggest that we who are merely mortal don't know enough to hold an opinion?

Your previous answer was that the campaign is like an uneven chess match which, while true, has nothing to do with the question I'm asking you now.

[Julien Sorel]

59. How on earth

you conclude that my post had anything to do with "mere mortals not knowing enough to have an opinion" is a complete mystery to me. It sounds to me like someone's feathers are ruffled from another thread, and they just can't quite get over it.

[Xipe Totec]

60. To Be Fair, BillyBunter

You are right to say that "someone's feathers are ruffled from another thread".

But isn't that what prompted the start this thread to begin with?

Or, were your feathers not ruffled by armchair analysts on other threads?

If our purpose is to unite the Democrats behind one candidate and one platform, we can't do it by baiting people into arguments that expose points of disagreement.

[Julien Sorel]

64. What prompted the start of this thread

was my observation that,

A) Too many people here are under the impression that each election represents a 50/50 affair, and the reason Democrats have lost in the past is because of ineptitude. It's a poisonous, self-defeating assumption that is also grossly incorrect. People have been willing to cede that the Depression and Watergate were "tsunami-like" events, which is an excellent analogy; however these same people refuse to recognize the gentler tides and currents that shape every election, and that each candidate has to battle against (and some get to cruise with). The Democrats suffered a setback in 2002, not because the tides (9/11) were running strongly against them, but because they are a bunch of "pink tu-tu wearing sissies" who can't stand up to the Republicans. It's simplistic, but simple minds are attracted to such nonsense.

B) Elections are complex affairs, and every action a campaign takes (to keep the water analogy intact) is like throwing a stone of uncertain size into a pool. No one can predict how many ripples will ensue, or what their amplitude will be; all we know for sure is that there will be ripples. Yet we have people here who act as if these things are certainties: if the Kerry campaign did this, they confidently assert, then they will win easily, and we can all live happily ever after. It's foolishness and counterproductive, as it rather strongly implies that Kerry, who was able to defeat a strong Democratic primary field -- a field that included people who ran their campaigns exactly the way these people think a campaign should be run, and yet lost badly, I might add -- is actually run by weaklings and boobs.

[Xipe Totec]

66. These Are Excellent Points

I think these points deserved to be made at the start of the thread.

I can see that you were trying to lead to this point by the Socratic method; asking questions that lead to reflection, that lead in turn to the point you are trying to make.

But face it, we are Democrats. You would have better luck herding cats.

:evilgrin:

Seriously, I think a lot of people just want to be reassured that it's OK to have reservations and second thoughts. They can't let go of the point because when they express reservation they get accused of thoughtcrime. THAT'S what riles them.

(fixed typo)

[Julien Sorel]

70. Had I structured mt post

with these points at the beginning, the thread would have got about six replies and died. You'll just have to trust me on that one.

72. Does that mean ---

you intentionally structured your thread to rile people up?

Kind of looks that way.

[ContinentalOp]

91. Ha ha!

A little successful strategy of your own :)

[ulysses]

63. so enlighten me, already.

What *was* your point?

[Guaranteed]

47. BTW

"On the other hand, if what's wanted in the position is someone who can figure out that the media is biased, maybe I'm in the wrong line of work."

LOL that's exactly what I thought.

[lastknowngood]

17. Check back after Nov after we lose 7 seats in the senate and

25 to 35 seats in the house as well as the white house. The DLC a wind of the repug party is ensuring that no one challenge the shrub or the lies his minions push. Americans have not been interested in thinking about politics for a long time. They just look at who is on the defensive and vote against them. That's why the cowards who keep rolling over for the shrub keep losing. The pink tu tu Dem's will hopefully all lose in Nov and real Dem's or a new party can emerge. If their are any further elections. This from a life long dem who will voting stright Dem ticket.

[Julien Sorel]

18. This board is truly amazing.

Never have I seen so many people refuse to get the point.


So, the Dems are losing because they are "pink tu tu" Dems. Why did the Republicans lose in 1974 and 1976? In 1932? In 1958, they were horrifically crushed as well. Were they "pink tu tu" Republicans? Some other color tu tu? It's so easy to sit on one's fat, doughy ass at home, safely hidden behind a monitor making pronouncements of doom.

So since you have annointed yourself an expert, explain what went wrong in the elections I pointed out. What could the Republicans have done to reverse the slide? Come on, you've solved the problem the Democrats have today as if it were nothing. Use your overpowering intellect and show what could have been done in the past.

[Guaranteed]

21. Well, shit man, that was 70 years ago.

Things have changed.

For one, we have TV. Don't you think things might be just a little bit different? Why even bother making the comparison?

[Julien Sorel]

22. There was TV in 1974 and 1976.

There has always been media of one sort or another. You're ducking the issue.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Too Many Reductionists On This Site...

There is no simple answer to your question but that each campaign has a dynamic of it's own...


I despise Bush with every fiber of my being but I realize that anger even righteous anger does not in and of itself make for a winning campaign... The folks on this board who want Kerry to say to Bush what we say about him here are disconnected from the American people... They talk to and surround themselves with people like themselves and think all Americans feel that way...


The Freepers are the same way but in another direction....


As to your original post the post Watergate losses for the Republicans are even more shocking when you realize they were already the minority party prior to the major losses....

[Cheswick2.0]

The american people don't know WTF they think...because they don't think

They will think what we want them to think if we make a convincing argument.
People are looking for a LEADER. Kerry is acting like he's running for bush's VP.

[Guaranteed]

32. Ducking the issue?

You're comparing 3 entirely different situations: the Depression, the biggest political corruption scandal in the history of our country, and our current election.

And you STILL haven't even mentioned what your point is. What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that Kerry is just destined to lose? What the hell kind of point is that?

[Julien Sorel]

34. My point was obvious to anyone who paid attention.

I made it even clearer in another post....

[Guaranteed]

36. See, you don't even know it. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. I Think He's Saying Elections Are A Complex Phenomena

You seem to be saying that we can beat Bush by unleashing the fury felt on this site toward him...


I think it would turn off most Americans...


As for what's said about * in my home it would make the proverbial sailor blush....

[Guaranteed]

42. The fury can be focused, and

it doesn't have to come off as fury at all.

Read my sig line. It would be an absolutely devastating point for our candidate to be pushing. Unfortunately, Kerry is hemmed in by his own record. His hands are tied so tightly that he can hardly oppose Bush on foreign policy, as obviously wrong as those policies are.

Of course, we knew that when we nominated him. But we wanted those medals to hide behind. We sacrificed an unknown strength for a weak sure thing.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. Yes, they were pink tutu republicans

They were crushed by watergate and the american people were unforgiving. Democrats were pissed about the Nixon pardon and they were energized.

[ljm2002]

88. "easy to sit on one's fat, doughy ass"...

..."safely hidden behind a monitor making pronouncements of doom. So since you have annointed yourself an expert, "...

Oh dear, aren't we just a beacon of light for the masses... NOT.

So how's yer ass? Not fat and doughy, I presume... although how I would KNOW, or more to the point, how YOU would know that someone ELSE's ass is "fat and doughy", is a matter of some conjecture...

And just who is the self-anointed expert? Looks to me like you're trying to (a) make a strawman political analogy or two, (b) set yourself up as an expert on the subject, and (c) knock down other people's opinions by saying they shouldn't express them because that makes them "armchair strategists".

Geez. People expressing strong opinions about their candidate's political strategies on a board devoted to Democratic politics. Imagine that! Guess you sure told them a thing or two...

:thumbsdown:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I'm Not In The Predictions Game But

$500.00 says we don't lose anywhere near thirty five House seats and seven senate seats....


The loser can donate $500.00 to the winner's favorite charity...


I'm sure we can find an impartial DUer to handle the funds...

[bushwakker]

27. You're comparing tsunami-like political events

to a much smaller tactical flareup. The GOP could have done nothing to stop the massive losses they suffered in the two instances you mentioned. Many of us think that the Kerry camp has not responded well to the recent attacks on Sen Kerry's Vietman serveice record. My complaint is specifically that they need find some articulate, well-informed (being well-versed in RW spin), quick-thinking and tough talking KERRY STAFERS (not James Carville, not Chris Matthews) to go on the pundit shows and aquit themselves weel and present their candidate well. I believe that Al Gore lost the presidency in 2000 (yes yes I know he won the presidency) by being outspun on the media battlefield and I would prefer that not happen again.

[Julien Sorel]

31. What was 9/11, but a "tsunami-like" political event?

And yet the same people who blame the Democrats for losing seats in 2002, as if there was a magical formula to avoid defeat, but the Democrats were too damn dumb to drink it, are now saying the same thing.

[Guaranteed]

35. How about showing some strength?

Voters want leadership.

God, I've been saying this for 7 or 8 months now here on this board. Voters want to see some conviction in their leaders. They want to see that their leaders believe in THEMSELVES, and aren't playing games with the issues. That's Bush's strong point. Whether he's wrong or not, he's not afraid to say what he thinks. He doesn't run from conflict- i.e., he's not afraid to defend what he believes in. That translates into his not being afraid to DEFEND HIS COUNTRY.

THUS:

The winning strategy is, GROW SOME FUCKING BALLS.

God DAMN.

[Julien Sorel]

41. You think Bush says what he thinks?

Ridiculous. Bush is the most carefully controlled politician I've ever seen. Usually when he "says what he thinks" it turns out to be a disaster, and he's forced to backtrack. Israel. Flat tax. "Compassionate conservatism." He's now out there talking about expanding healthcare, and reducing America's reliance on foreign oil. Do you think he actually believes in those things? Bush is a liar, pure and simple, and if he actually did "say what he thinks" more often, he'd still be in Texas playing cowboy.

We had another politician who "says what he thinks" who got the holy fuck kicked out of him in his own primary. But his snakeoil salesmen are still at it.

[Guaranteed]

46. He plays his role and is consistent

with his fascist party's values. People know that his party truly believes in the simple policies they are pushing (even if it's for different reasons than they say), and that is their strength. There is no reason to doubt any position they say that they hold.

74. He creates the illusion of saying what he thinks

He's perceived as a John Wayne straight shooter.
I think that's the point being made regarding growing some balls.

[bushwakker]

45. Apples and Oranges

9/11 was a non-partisan tragedy. Sure the GOP has tried to use it to their advantage but 2002 was not a GOP landslide. The GOP was in power during the Depression and paid for it. Watergate was a GOP scandal and they paid for it. No amount of spinning could've helped. What we have here is an election in which Kerry has the advantage. In tghe last 10 days a man who distinguished himself on thge battlefield hs had that service be-smirched by liars acting on behalf of a military deserter. Excuse me if I think the response could have been more organized and passionate.

[Julien Sorel]

52. Kerry does not have an advantage.

He is going against an incumbent president at a time of war, when the economy is doing well enough that no sitting president in history has lost with a similar one. Kerry is at a disadvantage, nad it's a sign of how well he's campaigned that he's positioned where he is.

[bushwakker]

56. If the election were held today Kerry would win

yes he does have the advantage currently. Is it your position that this election is not winnable?

[Julien Sorel]

61. The election is not being held today.

Kerry has no advantage, except in polls that are meaningless at this point. The dynamics of the race largely favor Bush.

And no, I don't think the election is unwinnable. I do think that the attitude and intellect I'm seeing on display here make it harder for Kerry to win, however. These are the people who should be working hardest to overcome the disadvantages Kerry has; instead they're sitting around wringing their hands and looking at every new development as a disaster in the making, and an example of how inept the Kerry campaign is because it doesn't handle everything the way these people say it should.

[Julien Sorel]

53. 9/11 was a tragedy that benefitted the more hawkish

party, and the incumbent. Guess who that is? There's no such thing as a "non-partisan tragedy." Every event plays into one side or the other's perceived strengths and weaknesses.

[Xipe Totec]

28. Here Is How 'The Other Side Sees It'

This is an excerpt from 'Election Projections 2004', a Republican leaning web-site. They post 21 reasons why Bush will win in November. These are worth-while reading because they point out what the Republicans think are some of our weaknesses. Three of the reasons are particularly apt to the present discussion:

__________________________________________________________
6. The perfect timing of the national conventions

"The Democrats made a major blunder in the 2004 presidential race by choosing to hold their national convention on July 26 in Boston. The GOP will be holding its convention in the first week of September. I could go on endlessly about why this helps the GOP, but here are four concise reasons:

1. Bush will be able to continue spending his Primary money until September and use his general election money from September to November. The Democratic candidate, however, will be out of money by July, because of a tough Primary, and then have to make his general election funds last from July to November. This exaggerates Bush's already crushing money advantage.

2. 9/11 will be a few days after the GOP convention.

3. By holding the Democratic convention on July 26, the Democrats risk losing the post-convention bounce in the polls by election day.

4. The summer Olympics are between the two conventions and will suck the air out of the DNC message."

The two months between September's Republican National Convention and Election Day will be a great time to be Republican. I can't wait!
_________________________________________________________________

18. The Deaniacs' pending revolt

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been a veritable political highlight reel. Never before in my memory has a candidate followed a path similar to the one of this eccentric politician. In the race for the Democratic nomination, it has been thoroughly entertaining to see this man so flamboyantly hurtle himself to the front of the pack only to relegate himself to also-ran status through clumsy mis-steps and childish outbursts, all in a period of a few months. But, even though he's finished as a viable choice, his candidacy will have far-reaching effects on the election in November. What Dean did was to identify and add fuel to a smoldering fire within a segment of the Democratic party. These liberal Bush-haters haven't broken their engagement with him. They understand that he "feels their anger" - the same anger that will now compel them vote for a third party candidate rather than betray their man by voting for the victorious Democratic foe. This group won't be huge, but it will be enough to give Bush another advantage.
__________________________________________________________________

19. Democratic experts still think Dubya's dumb

I had to add this one. Bush has made a career out of having his opponents "misunderestimate" him. They show no signs of realizing that they really aren't dealing with a moron. How many more times will the Democrats ponder, "How did he do that?"


http://www.electionprojection.com/essay1.html


Based on the post that I have seen here lately, it's hard to argue with these points. Keep in mind that Kerry is already spending election money while Bush is spending primary money. We can't blow the wad trying to put out every little Bush fire with a 'vigorous response'. Gotta make the money last.

The Iraq War Resolution vote has become a wedge issue within the Democratic party, because the issue is a surrogate for the Dean vs Kerry choice. To paraphrase it bluntly, "If Kerry was as good as Dean, he would have __________". That plays into the Republican's hands. I have also seen a lot of inflammatory posts denigrating "hand wringers", ABBers, and other "reluctant supporters of Kerry". That doesn't help either.


As for the third point (Bush is Dumb), well, I'm as guilty as all of you. I still think Bush is dumb as a fence post but he does have a powerful political machine guarding him and looking out for his image. The media is a big part of that machine. Let me use an analogy here:

I can't run very fast, but I don't have to. I drive a car that can get me places faster than I can ever possibly run. I just drive the car wherever I want. Boy George is the driver, the Republican political machine is the car, and the media are the tires is runs on.

I'm with Democratic_Strategist, it's time to let the air out of the tires and watch George Bush walk for president instead of running.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. A Few Counterpoints....

With 527 money Kerry is as least even with Bush if not surpassing him in campaign dollars...


I still think the Iraq War is a net loser for Bush.... He started it not Kerry....


I think Kerry will forcefully make the argument in the debates that by going to war without a true coalition Bush has fractured the post World War 2 alliance and made Americans loathed throughout the world...


Yeah, most Dems still think Bush is dumb but pay attention here the smart Dems know being dumb is often an advantage in American politics... The smart Dems really know this...

[Xipe Totec]

48. I Agree With The Counterpoints Mostly

Keep in mind that DU and Move-on and Truth-out ARE the 527s. The Kerry campaign fund is not. Therefore, it does not make sense to ask "Why doesn't Kerry respond to this or that?", since that depletes the locked campaign funds. Better for the unregulated 527s to handle the responses.

I also think the Iraq War is a net loser for Bush, so let's not turn the IWR resolution into an issue that divides Democrats.

As for playing dumb, this has been a strategy for gaining power for centuries. It is frightening to see it in action:

"It is striking to see the most cultivated and the most eminent representatives of the new Christian elite, conscious of their cultural unworthiness compared to the last purists, renounce what they yet possessed or could acquire in the form of intellectual refinements so that they could make themselves accessible to their flocks. They chose to grow stupid in order to conquer. If this leaves us dissatisfied it is nonetheless impressive. This farewell to antique literature, often uttered by men fully aware of the circumstances, is by no means the least moving aspect of abnegation of the great Christian leaders of the early middle ages…. …Caesarius of Arles took this point of view further:

I humbly beg that the ears of the educated may be content to bear rustic expressions without complaint, so that all the Saviour’s flock can receive heavenly food in a simple and down-to-earth language. Since the ignorant and the simple cannot rise themselves to the height of the educated, let the educated deign to lower themselves to their ignorance. Educated men can understand what has been said to the simple, whereas the simple are not able to profit from what would have been said to the learned."

Jacques Le Goff
Medieval Civilization 400-1500

[JPJones]

40. This deserves it's own thread

Instead of being apart of this pointless thread.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Why?

I deconstructed it in one post...


I'll do it again....


The R's think they have more money... With the help of 527's Kerry is even...


The R's think The Iraq War is a winner for Bush... I say it's a net loser despite Kerry's semantic gymnastics. Bush started it not Kerry...


The R's think we "misunderestimate" Bush. No, we know he's dumb as cement but we also know being dumb is an advantage in American politics. The average American wants a pres as smart or as dumb as them and in Bush that's exactly what they get...


Got any other questions..

-:)

[JPJones]

49. He's not saying these are true

he's saying that this is what the opposition believes.

When we phonebank and canvass, this sort of 'mindset' information is very useful.

It's also why so many of us are pissed that the DNC is so inept addressing the Swiftboat vets and 'sensitivity'. This is what we will have to debunk on the ground. Thanks for wasting the time of your ground operation, Terry!

[Xipe Totec]

50. Too Many Reductionists On This Site...

I think I remember somebody on this thread saying there are no simple answers...

:eyes:

[JPJones]

51. Welcome to DU

You have some very insightful posts here. I noticed that logical inconsistency as well.

[Xipe Totec]

55. Pleasure To Be Here!

I Thought about starting a thread to deconstruct all "21 Reasons Why Bush Will Win" but I don't have enough tenure on the DU board to be able to carry it out successfully. It could easily be misinterpreted as a disruptor post, or worse yet, be exploited by real disruptors on the board.

Though if you read some of the other 21 reasons now, they are laughable. The Economy, the DUI Arrest will be old news, etc.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. I'm Not Saying I Have The Best Plan To Beat Bush

but I do possess the political acumen to say that model is garbage....


Any Poli Sci 101 student could debunk that model...

[Xipe Totec]

94. I Don't Disagree With You

That the model is garbage, Check post #55.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=622346&mesg_id=622618&page=

What I am saying is that we need to focus on the real enemy and TRY to avoid taking pot shot at each other over single issues where Kerry's position may or may not agree with our personal beliefs.

This is a package deal; You got the sunroof you wanted, but you have to take the trim package that comes with it. Drive it around for a while, it may grow on you. You can always trade up for a better model later. For the moment the important thing is to dump the clunker we're driving before it leaves us stranded in the middle of the freaking Iraqi desert.

:evilgrin:

[bushwakker]

57. Has the SBL's attack hurt Kerry?

and what would your response to it have been?

[John_H]

62. Watergate. The Depression. LOL! You guys are really getting pathetic.

First, just to be non-aggressive, I'll bury the following in this thread: Why don't our all-is-sweetness-and-light people tell the truth about the actual reason for this new special op that's going on here at DU and elsewhere--the ridicule and derision of the "armchair strategists?" It took me two five minute phone calls to find out, and if you don't want to level with the on-line community, I will do so repeatedly and in various venues.

In classic passive aggressive fashion, Brother Billy is actually making an argument, not asking questions. The argument goes like this: Like Watergate and the Great Depression, external events, most notably 9-11, have made it impossible for Democrats to win, at least in the press. There's nothing they can do. And more importantly, it's certainly not the fault of those who advise our elected officials and candidates!

So Billy and Will and others give the rest of us some eighth-grade red herring filled cross examination. Watergate and The Great Depression. Sheesh.

The answer to your questions is of course, "They should have replaced many of their message strategy, communications, press, and surrogate people,"

Now here's an actually relevant question for you--Clinton faced the usual bush family style attacks in 92 and won; he faced scandal, IMPEACHMENT and the most hostile, biased, craven press imaginable. Yet he picked up 6 seats in a midterm election, destroyed not one, but two, speakers of the house, and survived with an approval rating in the mid sixties.

Different strategy, different people, different result.

To avoid your "I don't listen to armchair strategists" BS, why do you suppose a number of the people who led those successful efforts publicly and semi-publicly criticizing the rope-a-dope (LOL!)strategy employed by the democrats during the 2002 election and this election?

[Julien Sorel]

65. LOL indeed.

I'm an unemployed middle manager passing time here, yet I find I'm now part of some devious plot with Pitt, whom I don't know in the slightest, who, on the one hand, spreads "sweetness and light," and on the other, believes it's "impossible for the Democrats to win." Meds.

[BillZBubb]

67. Nice try at making some bad analogies.

If I recall correctly, even though Watergate was pretty well understood in political circles PRIOR to the 1972 elections, Nixon still won a landslide against McGovern. CREEP painted McGovern as an indecisive, un-American, weak-kneed liberal. McGovern never even bothered to fight back. Sound familiar?

And if the Republicans hadn't pushed the country in a deep recession in 1973-1974, they wouldn't have lost 48 house seats and 5 senate seats. Does that help you out? Watergate was the least of their problems.

[Guaranteed]

68. Yes, that does sound eerily familiar.

Thanks for refocusing that one. :)

[Julien Sorel]

69. Analogies don't have to agree in all respects,

to make their point.

The extent of Nixon's involvement in Watergate was certainly not known at the time of the election. There was evidence pointing to CREEP, but nothing demonstrating Nixon was involved.

McGovern never even bothered to fight back. Sound familiar?

You obviously have a great deal to learn about the McGovern campaign. McGovern ran attack ads against Nixon over Vietnam, and tried (without success) to connect Nixon to Watergate. So to the extent that we have yet another DUer naively assumuing they are the first person to stumble across the idea that politicians "fight back," yes, it does sound familiar.


And if the Republicans hadn't pushed the country in a deep recession in 1973-1974, they wouldn't have lost 48 house seats and 5 senate seats. Does that help you out? Watergate was the least of their problems.

Thanks for the help, but, well, it wasn't help. Nixon resigned in August of 1974, and Ford pardoned him in September. The pardon in particular stoked outrage, particularly among the media. The elections in November were fought almost entirely around those issues -- I remember them rather well. But again, thanks for the help.

75. The extent of Nixon's involvement in Watergate

Everyone KNEW Nixon was involved, there just wasn't any hard proof.

Anyone who had dealt with Nixon knew it had his handwriting all over it.

He'd been playing the same kind of tricks since the beginning of his political career.

[Julien Sorel]

85. Right.

Anyone who had dealt with Nixon knew it had his handwriting all over it.

Anyone who honestly believes the public thought Nixon was involved in Watergate in 1972 is simply ignorant of the facts.

Here, I went out and dug up a scholarly analysis of Nixon's poll numbers, and the impact Watergate had on them. As you can see, once the public learned of his involvement his numbers went into the gutter, but it wasn't until they learned of it that his numbers sank. So the claim that "Everyone knew Nixon was involved from the start" is obviously false.

http://www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/Docs/scandals.html

86. I should have been clearer

the public did not know, I'll agree with that.

I was thinking of people who were paying attention.

I was 15 and 16 at the time, volunteering for the McGovern campaign.
I remember it quite well.
And my parents lived in Nixon's congressional district at his beginnings.
So maybe my perspective is skewed. I was a member of the public and I was only 16 and I knew. Remember all that HST stuff he wrote in 1972?
The idea was definitely out there that Nixon was involved.

As for the truth or falsity? What I meant by Knew was they knew, they just didn't want to admit it to themselves. That's why until there was hard proof it didn't effect poll numbers. At least that's the way I read it.
Something analogous has been going on with the liar Bush.

I do think that the people who eventually brought Nixon down KNEW. That's why they went after him.

[BillZBubb]

80. Nice try, but you are wrong again.

McGovern NEVER used his heroic service in WWII to bolster his image. McGovern FAILED to answer the Repug attacks on his character. Everyone KNEW Nixon was involved in Watergate, but McGovern FAILED to make that an issue. Did McGovern run ONE national ad on Watergate?

As to the November 1974 elections, it was the lousy economy, not the pardon that made the difference. The pardon was more important in 1976 when Ford was up for election. You apparently don't remember as well as you think.

And nice try redefining analogies! Talk about other people being naive---GEEEZ!

[Neshanic]

84. Right. People were furious over the pardon and threw Ford out.

[Neshanic]

81. Of course the "we have it in the bag" group does not remember this

Watergate was a second term fiasco for Nixon. There are going to be some surprised people here after the RNC.

Bush has control of the information of his crimes. He has a compliant media that will do anything to help him win. He has a group of criminals with dirty tricks and enough ways to use them without being called out.

A neverending war, staggering corruption, corporate cronyism, jobs fleeing, gas at all time highs, religious fundamentalism collapsing the wall between church and state, and we have polls that show that we are winning by what amount?

I think some of you calling us out because we voice concern are gonna be real surprised in a couple of weeks.

[ContinentalOp]

71. I'll fill in the blanks...

If only the Republicans had not been involved in a robbery and coverup at Watergate they wouldn't have lost 48 House seats and 5 Senate seats.

If the Republicans had not screwed up our economy with their reckless free-market policies they wouldn't have lost 8 Senate seats and 60 House seats in the wake of the Depression.

The Republicans deserved these losses because they created these problems. What you are implying is that there is now a problem of a similar magnitude that should be blamed on the Democrats and therefore we can't win and don't deserve to win. You're essentially arguing that 911 was the Democrats' fault.

The fact of the matter is that with all of the major scandals and failures (intelligence, economic, and international) plaguing this administration we should see another Republican loss the size of the two you describe. I'm pretty confident that it will happen and I look forward to a good 16 year run of Dems in the White House. And if it doesn't happen I'm pretty sure the online griping of a few "armchair strategists" won't have been the factor that lost Kerry the election.

[Julien Sorel]

73. Sorry, I'm implying nothing of the sort.

Read the rest of the thread.


The fact of the matter is that with all of the major scandals and failures (intelligence, economic, and international) plaguing this administration we should see another Republican loss the size of the two you describe.

This is a fact? What makes it a fact? It's your opinion, not a fact. Facts cannot be reasonably disputed; this statement can.

76. a misreading

Saying "The fact of the matter is that... we should" clearly indicates that it is the poster's opinion. If the poster had said "The fact of the matter is that ... we will" then you could quibble about the Fact of the matter.

Of course that's just my opinion.

[Julien Sorel]

79. Holy Toledo.

No further comment.

[ContinentalOp]

83. Yes, it's my opinion.

"The fact of the matter is.." is simply a turn of phrase and I'll concede that this is merely my opinion. However, you didn't address the rest of my post at all. And yes, I have read the entire thread.

In your initial post you imply that, regardless of any strategy, the Republicans simply could not win after the Depression and Watergate. The way I understand your post is to say that their failures were too large for any magic strategy to have saved the party politically. Is that an incorrect interpretation of your point?

Then in post #31 you go on to say "What was 9/11, but a "tsunami-like" political event?", implying that 9/11 will have a political effect of the magnitude of the Depression or Watergate. Is that an unfair conclusion to make from your post?

Then you add "And yet the same people who blame the Democrats for losing seats in 2002, as if there was a magical formula to avoid defeat," implying that Democrats experienced some inevitable political fallout from 9/11. Why should this fallout hit the Democrats and not the Republicans. You draw an interesting parallel between the failures of leadership that led to the Depression, Watergate, and 9/11 and yet you fall right into the right-wing spin that 9/11 should somehow reflect poorly on Democrats. The implication is that the "intelligence failures" and other problems that allowed 9/11 to happen were Clinton's problems rather than Bush's.

In post #53 you state that "9/11 was a tragedy that benefitted the more hawkish party, and the incumbent. Guess who that is?" I'm guessing this is a clear statement of the point you were trying to make all along and yet I have to disagree with your conclusion. Why isn't 9/11 a tragic security failure that highlights the staggering ineptitude of this administration? Yeah, I know, it's the media's fault right? My point is that you are helping to enforce the idea that 9/11 is a Democratic failure by connecting it to Watergate. To me the idea that we should spend our time emailing a media that has no intention of changing is a bit silly and pointless if we ourselves are going to repeat and enforce Republican themes and talking points in the language that we use.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

87. That's A Long Post....

I think Billy was saying events play a large role in politics....


I don't think he inferred from that theory that Kerry is a loser.....



I think he was parroting Mencken's line that "there are simple solutions to complex problems and they are all wrong."

[Julien Sorel]

89. The best post yet from your side.

Actually, it's the only good one. You are to be sincerely congratulated.

Now,

In your initial post you imply that, regardless of any strategy, the Republicans simply could not win after the Depression and Watergate. The way I understand your post is to say that their failures were too large for any magic strategy to have saved the party politically. Is that an incorrect interpretation of your point?


That is a correct interpretation. I believe that the Republicans could have shaved some of their losses by adopting a more assertive, activist stance vis a vis economic recovery, but they chose to stand pat on free market ideology, and got beaten worse than they could have. But they were going to take a beating no matter what.

Then in post #31 you go on to say "What was 9/11, but a "tsunami-like" political event?", implying that 9/11 will have a political effect of the magnitude of the Depression or Watergate. Is that an unfair conclusion to make from your post?

Not on the scale of Watergate or the Depression, but a big impact nonetheless. Call it a rogue wave instead of a tsunami. And I believe (note, it is not a fact), that had the Democrats adopted an in-your-face approach, as some people here insist was the correct thing to do, the public would have turned even more towards the Republicans because they would have been seen as the party that "gets" security, while the Democrats would be seen as wimpy obstructionists. This goes back to the incorrectness of the 50-50 assumption: sometimes you are going to take an ass-whipping no matter what you do, it's just a question of degree, and your ability to roll with the punches.

Then you add "And yet the same people who blame the Democrats for losing seats in 2002, as if there was a magical formula to avoid defeat," implying that Democrats experienced some inevitable political fallout from 9/11. Why should this fallout hit the Democrats and not the Republicans.


Right now, and it has been this way since the second half of the Truman presidency, the public feels the Republicans are the party of choice for national security (you can thank Ike -- one of the reasons I was a rabid Clark supporter). It isn't a case of who is responsible for 9/11, but who is the best choice for fixing the problems. Because of the public's perception of the parties, 9/11 was a boon to Republicans, and presented challenges to Democrats. That would constitute a "tide" against which the Dems had to struggle in 2002.
Even I don't hold Bush entirely reponsible for 9/11, any more than I hold Clinton responsible for the Cole bombing, or the OK City bombing. The public is far more forgiving than I. And there's a natural tendency for people to rally around the president at times like those. Was FDR held accountable for Pearl Harbor?


In post #53 you state that "9/11 was a tragedy that benefitted the more hawkish party, and the incumbent. Guess who that is?" I'm guessing this is a clear statement of the point you were trying to make all along and yet I have to disagree with your conclusion. Why isn't 9/11 a tragic security failure that highlights the staggering ineptitude of this administration? Yeah, I know, it's the media's fault right?

I'm not one of the conspiracy theorists who infest this place. Again, the public has a tendency not to hold presidents accountable for things like this -- Democratic as well as Republican presidents.

My point is that you are helping to enforce the idea that 9/11 is a Democratic failure by connecting it to Watergate.

I'm unclear on how anyone could see 9/11 as a Democratic failure.

[ContinentalOp]

90. My side? We're all Dems here right?

Thanks for the clarification and I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I understand that you're speaking primarily of the public's <i>perception</i> that Democrats are weak on defense and how that plays into the current political situation post 9/11.

However I still have to quibble with your final line "I'm unclear on how anyone could see 9/11 as a Democratic failure." If that's the case why should 9/11 reflect on Democrats at all? My problem with your original argument is that Republicans couldn't spin their way out of Watergate because it was an actual crime that had been committed and covered up at the highest levels of government. The political effects of 9/11 on the other hand are all about <i>appearances</i> and public perception. The Democrats are guilty of nothing but having a wimpy image.

This is something that can be changed and it's what a political campaign is all about: image, perception, style over substance. I think that's why so many of us feel that this election is not a hopeless case and that despite all of the odds Kerry can and MUST redefine himself and the party. Perhaps he has already done this somewhat with the convention and hopefully he has some surprises up his sleeve. Sure, the media can be blamed for the image problem but I believe it would be possible for a brilliant politician to play even a hostile media like a fiddle. Let's hope that's exactly what's happening and some of us are simply too dense to perceive it :)

By the way, what is the image in your sig? That's a great statue!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

92. I'm Curious....

I don't think Billy thinks Kerry is a loser....



I'd be interested to hear from him...


As far as the security issue the Republicans have an edge but there is a great difference between having an edge and owning the issue....


If we let them own it we are doomed...

[Julien Sorel]

93. Reply

However I still have to quibble with your final line "I'm unclear on how anyone could see 9/11 as a Democratic failure." If that's the case why should 9/11 reflect on Democrats at all? My problem with your original argument is that Republicans couldn't spin their way out of Watergate because it was an actual crime that had been committed and covered up at the highest levels of government. The political effects of 9/11 on the other hand are all about <i>appearances</i> and public perception. The Democrats are guilty of nothing but having a wimpy image.


In the wake of 9/11, that was a high crime.

By the way, I believe the Republicans could have lessened the damage of Watergate had Ford not pardoned Nixon, and had they not fought impeachment so hard. Again, you have to roll with the punches, and they largely did not. If they had message boards back then, I can imagine some of these people demanding that the Republicans take off their pink tu tus and fight impeachment to the end.

This is something that can be changed and it's what a political campaign is all about: image, perception, style over substance. I think that's why so many of us feel that this election is not a hopeless case and that despite all of the odds Kerry can and MUST redefine himself and the party.

Yes, he can. But every move he makes in that direction is looked at as some kind of sellout by a small, but ludicrously vocal, minority here. Kerry works to alter the image of the party, and these yahoos go beserk, screaming about pink tu tu Democrat and the like, or calling Kerry "Republican lite." Those were some of the people I was aiming this thread at.

I don't know where the idea comes from that I think Kerry is a loser. I thought he was the third best choice during the primaries (behind Clark, then Edwards), and now I think he's the second. He's a very savvy politician, tenacious, with a good life story going for him. He has thick skin. He's run a good campaign so far. I'm a little worried that he might peak too soon, and I've always said the odds are against him, not because of the so-called "war on terra," which Bush has mishandled to the point where it's a potential liability, but because of the economy. But these are strange times, and Kerry is doing well in the polls. Too bad there's 80-odd days to go, and the Republicans have a convention between now and then. But he has a fighting chance. Two years ago, that's more than I could have asked for.