So, do we support the 50-state strategy, or do we support making the party more liberal?

[Recursion]

Or am I presenting a false choice?

As I see it, I'm reading two very strongly held but ultimately contradictory opinions here:

1. On the one hand we should go back to the 50-state strategy and run candidates that can win Republican-leaning districts

2. On the other hand, we need to move our policy "to the left" (though I have issues with a simplistic left-right spectrum for most political issues) because either:

2a) People respect parties that stand for what they believe in even if they don't agree

2b) The country is actually much more liberal than the national narrative says it is

Now, Dean's strategy did win us a lot of seats, and did so by giving us a much more conservative caucus, whose most conservative members were in districts that simply did not agree with the national party's objectives. At least that's how a lot of people look at it.

If 2a or 2b is right, then that analysis is wrong. In 2b's case, Gene Taylor's district (to take an example) is actually full of enough people who support a woman's right to choose that he would have won re-election if he had defended that right. If 2a is right, then why he lost was because he wasn't actively fighting for the principles of his party, even if those principles were contrary to the principles of a majority of voters in his district.

My own belief is that outside of the small minority of us who post on political forums, ideology is very uninteresting to people: any ideology that delivers results they like will be rewarded.

Now, an uncomfortable fact is that our government recently has a history of working better with a divided government than with a single party government: when a party is completely in charge the kind of intra-party breakdowns the GOP and then we showed actually seem to do more damage to legislation than inter-party gridlock. The 50-state idea may have something to do with this: to win over a broader coalition, parties have to stretch their ideologies to the breaking point (and, yes, this did happen on the GOP's side, too; this was really not a "far-right" agenda we were under from 2000-2008, any more than it was a "far-left" agenda we were under from 2008-2010 -- this is where the SSDD people have a point, and the governable center in this country is fairly narrow, policy-wise).

Going forward, we will have a smaller but more coherent caucus, which is exactly what happened to the GOP in 2006. We can go deep, or we can go broad, but I don't think we can do both. I really do think the choice I presented isn't false, because I reject 2b and most of 2a (I think 2a has some amount of truth to it). But whom we support in the upcoming two years will make a lot of difference in which way we go.

[leftstreet]

1. Is single payer healthcare an 'ideology?'

Is social security? Medicare?

:shrug:

[dionysus]

8. yes. for many it is. i have a brother in georgia who lives in a trailer and preaches trickle down

economics.

he believes this because talk radio tought him anything proposed by a democrat is bad. evil and unamerican in fact.

"soshalist helf care" is how they view the weak HCR bill.

[leftstreet]

10. He should maybe get a formaldehyde check on that trailer

:-)

[dionysus]

13. LOL.. well no shit, but this is what we face man. these ppl have been convinced to reliably vote

against themselves over and over and over.

[Recursion]

16. See, we need to stay away from that patronizing meme, I think

We look at people and say "why are they voting against their own interests" very smugly, when maybe what's going on is that what they perceive as "their interests" is very different from what we perceive as "their interests".

[dionysus]

18. well explain. when a relative of mine lives in a trailer and literally preaches trickle down

economics, explain what interest of their own they are voting for?

[Recursion]

20. Have you asked him?

I'm willing to bet it's not because he thinks it will make him rich.

[dionysus]

22. his view is without the rich to employ him, in a vague way, he won't get ahead.

i've tried to reason with him many times, he won't have it.

[Recursion]

26. Hm. My teahadist relatives want to "stand or fall on their own"

They also don't like that, for instance, they can't cut down trees in their backyards because it's a "wetland".

[kctim]

40. Bingo

To be left alone and live their own lives. Individual rights and freedoms are at the top of their list.
The Democratic Party can either respect that and be a "broad" party who CAN gain and hold power, OR, it can become an ideological party, kick us moderates out and HOPE for power.

[Recursion]

11. Sure, those have definite ideological underpinnings

And, specifically, it's an ideology that is unfortunately in decline throughout the world, that the nation-state is the appropriate level to provide social safety nets.

[w8liftinglady]

43. strangely enough,my fundie area actually supported my editorial on UHC

since we have such a HUGE number of uninsured self-employed folks here who make too much to qualify for Medicaid.Children are only covered until age 5 in Texas unless you are 125% of poverty level or less.that affects A LOT of families here...6 million ages 18-64 and 21% of kids under 18.

they see the effects on their own families.I have cared for them...I see it,too.

[Taverner]

2. Both

Believe me, there is something in the Progressive's magic bag of tricks that will appeal to anyone in our 50 states.

I am sure those in the gulf are pissed about BP

I am sure those in the Midwest are pissed about the weather changes, that came from Climate change

I am sure those in the South don't like corporations having the same rights as citizens

I am sure those in California, Oregon and Washington don't like all the offshoring

There will always be the rub

And where there is the rub, there should be the Democratic Alternative

[walldude]

6. There was so much the Dems could have used...

Where were the ads talking about the Republicans vote against health care for 9/11 first responders? I mean come on, even the baggers would have a hard time supporting tax breaks for foreign companies over health care for 9/11 heroes.

This was the worst run, worst organized campaign I have ever seen.

Then to top it all off the President decides to "reach out to Republicans". :banghead:

[Taverner]

19. Is it me or do you think there is a faction within the party who is trying to make us lose?

I mean, that is the only answer to explain certain things

Now I don't think the President is one of them

But other folks in our camp - make me wonder how much they really want the Democrats to succeed.

[walldude]

23. Yeah I was wondering that during the run up

it seemed like they just didn't care at all. The Republicans blocked so much legislation that the Dems had a freakin arsenal of good ads at their disposal. Too bad they didn't use it. Who knows, maybe Kaine is a Republican operative.

I agree about Obama, he seems like a decent guy, just not the ass kicking leader we needed.

[Taverner]

29. He wanted to be the Reagan of the left

And I can understand - Reagan (unlike current Repugs) reached across the aisle

He understood the needs for things like stop signs and what not...

But that was a different time. The Dems RAN congress. The Supreme Court was balanced. and Reagan owned the White House. He had to compromise.

Today, the GOP runs one house, the Dems kind of run the other - but its so unstable with things like term limits that no one can get a full grasp on anything. So they just give up and talk platitudes. Oh, and did I mention the Supreme Court is bought and paid for by the GOP.

[Recursion]

42. I think he's well on his way: the country will be much more liberal after his terms

I don't really have any doubt of that: he will have changed the direction of political discourse significantly to the left.

[polichick]

3. We need to run a 50-state strategy and talk policies, not labels...

When you talk labels, it's a self-identifying center-right country.

When you talk policies, it's a progressive country.

[Recursion]

5. Well, I think it's a country that doesn't think things through very much

It's a country that punishes the right for cutting services and punishes the left for raising taxes, but at some point one or both of those have to happen.

[polichick]

7. We could use a professional rebranding/communication team...

...because you're right, people don't think things through very well.

[Recursion]

14. I like your "policies not labels" idea

It also makes me wonder if Rahm had a point that we should have gone for one small, concrete thing at a time in health care.

[polichick]

17. Much as I hate to credit Rahm for anything (lol), that does sound good. nt

[Mojambo]

4. Interesting post. Recommended.

I look forward to reading others thoughts on this.

[L0oniX]

9. How about support for making it a larger progressive tent?

[Recursion]

12. Well, ok, but where are the progressives that aren't in our tent?

I mean, yes, there are some, but how many? And what would it take to get them in the tent? And how many people would that lose? (I'm sure there are plenty of people who have done that particular math, which is why we haven't done it.)

[xchrom]

15. Branding, marketing and individual charisma

Are of inestimable value.

Combine that with the fact that since Reagan the
Democratic party has been successfully labelled,
Branded as the Party of the left - why run away from it?

Embrace it, gather it in -- make it work to your
Advantage in even the reddest areas.
It's what people think you are -- WORK it.

[frustrated_lefty]

21. Take the word liberal back so it isn't a dirty word for starters.

And go with a 50 state strategy. Many....not all, but many...so-called liberal policies would do well in conservative districts if the message is delivered properly.

[frazzled]

24. Is the country really more liberal than it is portrayed?

The exit polls were fairly depressing on that subject. Among those voting, people described their ideology as:

Liberal (20%)

Moderate (39%)

Conservative (41%)

Only 20% of the voters Tuesday claimed to be liberal, only half the number who claim to be conservative (41%). That leaves us those who self-identify as "moderate"--that could mean a lot of things: it could be fairly liberal-minded folk on most issues but who are, say, fiscally conservative. Or it could be conservative folk who are fairly liberal on social issues. We don't know.

But what seems clear is that (a) not enough liberals came to the polls; and (b) if the country is liberal, it sure doesn't know it. 80% of voting Americans didn't want to claim that mantle.

[jeff47]

31. You have the problem of self-identification

The term "Liberal" has been so effectively demonized, many who are actually liberal will not identify themselves as such.

How people label themselves is much less important than the individual policies they support.

pro-Choice is the majority position (unless you ask the question in a leading way)
pro-Labor is the majority position
anti-free trade is the majority position
pro-Social Security is the majority position
pro-Medicare is the majority position
Public Option in healthcare is the majority position
Raising taxes on the wealthy is the majority position

Doesn't matter if they call themselves "Moderate". If they believe that, they're liberal. Don't talk about the political labels that don't fit well anyway. Talk about policies. The liberal ones win.

[ibegurpard]

35. yup

[Gaedel]

36. Raising taxes on the wealthy

That is the majority opinion.


Unfortunately, the vast majority considers "wealthy" to be only those people making more money than they make.

[jeff47]

39. That's fine

"Unfortunately, the vast majority considers "wealthy" to be only those people making more money than they make."

That's fine. Only 3% have an income > 250k/year. I don't mind losing in a demographic that composes only 3% of the population.

[BzaDem]

37. Then why did 56% want government to do less, while only 40% wanted government to do more? n/t

[jeff47]

38. "Less" and "More" what?

Many here would like the government to do less military activities.

Similarly, many right-wing whackos think the government should do more to invade our private lives.

That was an incredibly vague poll question which provides no actual information.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

25. We need to present simple facts like a drumbeat, over and over,

speaking with one voice about failed republican policies, telling the country that large multinational corporations are not for small business, asking how many normal taxpayers it would take to make up for top end tax cuts. We need to be bold and not back down, we know that the right wing will not compromise, so why should we?

[OHdem10]

27. I will throw another thought in the pot to further confuse, --no

not confuse.

At present there seems to be a process used which gives the
same result no matter if we use 50 state strategy or whatever
you call this using just certain states and focusing there.

In any election our country is lucky if we get 50% of the
people to particpate--Dems and Repubs combined.

Fifty percent dropped out years ago it seems.

We are told this is a Conservative Country but there are
more registered Democrats than Republicans in every state.
Why have so many Democrats dropped out.

Now may I tell you a story. A few years back, I think about
the time of Kerry Campaign. There was a Seat, I cannot remember
if it was Senate or House opem here in OHIO. Now do not start
screaming , please hear me out. For those of you who do not
know Jerry Springer is highly intellectual, and was at one
time Mayor of Cincinnatti. Cincinnati many years later is
Red and Columbus is blue for the most part. Anyway, going
back to the story. Jerry Springer came into Columbus and
deliberately sought out those people who no longer vote.
His Celebrity helped of course, but it was amazing the crowd
he drew. Jerry is a real Liberal. Our Party, typical Elite
Snobs turned him down. It is more appropriate to have Republicans
for our Party, I guess. The people know that the Jerry Springer
Show is not Jerry Springer. Jerry was Liberal and not fearful
about admitting it. Needless to say Jerry went back to his
day job and the people went back into the woodwork. Jerry
was unnacceptable to our party.

Right now we only compete with the Republicans for their
constituents. I say we should go further down the economic
scale. With the new money on Republican side we must have
more voters. Locking out Liberal Candidates is not helpful.
broaden our constituencey. We must have peo;e if we

I am trying to point out many th



My point is we could have started to regrow our party.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Hey I remember that

and it happens like clockwork actually.

part of the problem

[Scuba]

30. If we would just do a couple of things, we could pick up 10-15% of....

...the eligible voters who don't vote now.

These people feel disenfranchised, and a couple of measures could pull them in.

Raising the minimum wage

Medicare for All

End the wars

[Recursion]

32. OK, let me compare us to the teabaggers, sadly

Yes, everyone would love us if we did any of those.

They will hate us when it comes time to pay for them.

Similarly, everybody loves the idea of a balanced budget the teahadists want. But they will hate them if they do the spending cuts it requires.

[Scuba]

33. Ending the wars would pay for all of it.....

...a truely progressive tax code would also.

[Recursion]

41. Just to be clear: ending the wars pays for about 1/2 of Medicare *as it is*

Not as it would be if we enrolled everyone, which would be a lot of money, even if we could get all providers to take current Medicare reimbursement rates, which it's not clear we could do.

[ibegurpard]

34. depends on your definition of liberal

a liberal version of economic populism that this Democratic Party wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole could do wonders.

[theglammistress]

44. Why be afraid of being a liberal?

I've been thinking a lot about strategy since Tuesday...I guess for me it all boils down to being disappointed. If a candidate is a liberal...then govern as such! I'm sick of the DEMS always pandering to the right or the general, uneducated public instead of trying to better-explain issues and, you know, having a backbone.

We need a deeper bench of more liberal candidates. The Tea Party doesn't have a lock on political movements. There is no shame in being a liberal - it's the only way to live if you ask me :)

I'm a new poster, longtime reader...and mad. You'll be seeing a lot from me.