Democrats need to keep the trend going. Before the successes of the 2008 election, there was 2006

[ProSense]

2006 Campaign Ads Reveal Progressive Populism


Truth in Advertising: What 2006 Campaigns Tell Us (PDF)

The 2006 elections produced an historic sea change, as Democrats, despite the impediments of gerrymandered districts, incumbency, money, machinery and mobilization capacity, took control of the House and the Senate. Democrats have gained 29 seats and counting in the House and six in the Senate. Stunningly, incumbent Democrats lost not one seat. Democrats also made gains in the states. They picked up 275 seats in state legislatures, taking control of nine new chambers and winning six new governors’ offices. Democrats now control a majority of statehouses, and both legislative bodies in 23 states, with Republicans controlling 10 states and 16 split.
Democrats won in every region, but the bulk of the gains were in the Northeast and Midwest. This was a sweeping repudiation of one party rule in Washington, with Republicans suffering down ballot as well.

<...>

In the races we studied, the largest sums of campaign advertising were spent on economic ads that featured remarkably populist messages. Ads from candidates of both parties showed people working harder and not getting ahead. Campaign ads featured drugs people couldn’t afford, college priced out of reach, and fuel prices breaking family budgets. Corruption was linked to this middle class squeeze. The cost of corruption – candidates voting the interests of corporate lobbies and donors rather than working families – attracted the most combined ad money. While working families struggled, big business and corporate elites were portrayed as making out like bandits. Corporate lobbies regularly appeared as a villain in ads by candidates from both parties, whether driving up the price of oil, polluting the Everglades, or fouling up health care. It can be safely said that more money was spent on ads depicting Big Oil and Big Pharma as threats than on ads warning of Osama bin Laden.

<...>

[SunsetDreams]

1. K&R

not sure why any democrat would unrec this?:shrug:

[smalll]

2. Except we're not in 2006 anymore --

2006 - just 2 short years after Dubya got re-elected, where Dubya won with over 50% of the vote (yes, I'm no "Truth In All") ---

And even in 2008, history was going our way -- likely Dems would have won one way or another. But if we had won by exciting over 50% of the population -- working class, middle class, upper class -- (we're talking XX vs. XY at that point -- hint, hint)

if we had won by convincing Real America that one's candidate could chug shots at one's local bar --

we might still win this midterm.

But when you live for the moment, and build your victory on the three-legged stool of late liberals, I-pod kids, and African-Americans, you can be sure that only the first leg of the stool will show up for the off-year.

As the kids like to say, "It is what it is." :shrug:

[SunsetDreams]

3. I'm puzzled,

what do you mean by this statement?
"But when you live for the moment, and build your victory on the three-legged stool of late liberals, I-pod kids, and African-Americans, you can be sure that only the first leg of the stool will show up for the off-year."

[smalll]

4. Sorry, that was supposed to be "latte liberals" (not late liberals) --

Latte liberals, iPod kids, and African-Americans: good enough to win mickey-mouse caucuses in empty states. Carrying through to the mid-terms? Not so much. :shrug:

[SunsetDreams]

5. I can understand maybe "kids"

but what I'm not understanding is "African Americans". Also what do you mean by "Latte" liberals? who are they?

[smalll]

6. We're talking about the three legs of the Obama tripod. Stop being so coy.

Latte liberals? They'll set down their organic arugula for a moment to go out and vote in midterms; the other two groups? Not so much...

Live by cool, die by cool. :shrug:

[SunsetDreams]

7. Coy? hardly.

I think you are categorizing "groups" of people.

I will leave it at that.