What do the Democrats need to change?

[Dramatist]

I don't post much in R&P but I do read it. I don't think I've ever started a post here.

It's obvious to me that Democrats need to change their strategy if they want to get more competitive in national politics. I'm not just talking about Bush/Kerry because I honestly believe that Bush was a mediocre candidate and that Kerry was more mediocre. That and it's still very close.

I'm talking about the whole party, the House and the Senate too.

I'm not sure I have any answers, but I do have a few thoughts as an independant voter.

[YellowKing]

One thing they need to do is shift back to morals and start taking religious folks more seriously. My perception is that the left sees the religious voter as a crackpot evangelical, when in fact a very large portion of this country falls into a more moderate religious stance. These people don't take some of the more extreme views of the so-called religious right, but at the same time they place a large emphasis on morals and family values. As a perfect example, Kerry's stance on gay marriage could very well have cost him Ohio. We've seen nine out of 10 states now ban gay marriage - these aren't crackpots and fringe elements passing these amendments.

[phishbate]

To me this election showed that if a Democrat will not take a strong stand for civil rights and liberties then the religious right can out mobilize voters. Obama spoke very strongly on this issue and destroyed the fringe man Keyes. I see voters under 30 leaning libertarian and when presented with no main party candidate that supports their principles they'll just stay home.

In my opinion the Democratic party has to dump the remaining establishment and become the strong party for two principles. Start screaming for social equality (pro-choice, equal "marriage" rights for all citizens, anti-Patriot act, etc) and show the American public that they are the party of fiscal "responsibility" and the Republicans are the out of control spenders. Bush won this election by STRONGLY mobilizing those against equality and Kerry lost by ignoring equality issues.

[msteelers]

The Republicans have taken the conservative stance and embraced it and made it good to be conservative, and use liberal like a dirty word.

If the Dems can even the field and either make liberal a good name or make conservatism dirty, that would be a good step.

[Dramatist]

Like I said, I consider myself an Independant, although I'll admit I tend to lean more Republican than Democrat. I've often wondered why I lean that way because while I'm fiscally conservative I am socially moderate, even liberal to a certain extent.

Here's one thing that bothers me alot about Democrats. They seem overly mean spirited. I'm not talking about the politicians now, but the supporters within the party. I'm not too bothered by poking fun of the politicians themselves either (although I think the Bush is an idiot humor has never been funny). The way a lot of Democrat supporters say that Republican voters are idiots, Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy" talk and Hollywood's Republican bashing really irks me. I don't wanna be associated with that.

I realize that I'm painting with broad strokes and Republicans are guilt of this type thing too, but it appears to me that Democrats are worse. That, as I've said, really bugs me.

I also think the whole gay marriage thing was a very bad democratic strategy to bring into the election this year. I just don't think the country was ready for it, and I think it cost some Democratic votes.

Anyone else have any thoughts? Am I way off here?

[qp]

I think the Democrats need to actually start standing for something and having actual plans for what they'd like to do (and share it with people) and quit waffling based on polls etc. I mean if you're a liberal leaning person fine, just don't try and hide it (talking politicians here) - if you want to add some new social plan, then draw up a budget of how much it will cost plan how to execute and tell everyone "hey this is what we want to do".

Then they'll vote - you might get more votes or less votes, but at least people know what they are voting for. At least there will be more respect (IMO) that way. Kerry wouldn't himself be pinned down on anything, he wouldn't share his grand plans with anyone, he just kept going on about how he had a plan.

And for goodness sakes try and find a decent candidate next time - I'm pretty sure the dems could've cleaned up if they had someone decent to run.

In short politicians need to run on a platform of issues and positions, not on a demonize your opponent campaign or vague promises of how everything "will be better" when you win.

[Padre]

I'd like to see a candidate make an impassioned stand as a genuine dyed-in-the-wool vil liberties loving liberal, just to see how it would poll if done with charm, passion and conviction.

But more honsestly, I think the party neeeds a Southern, charming, man-of-the-people Clintonesque smooth-talking trial lawyer candidate. It think it's pretty clear that people vote more on the man than they do on the issues, and sticking up boring stuffed shirts like Kerry with millionaire wives and crap pitching arms does the Democrats no favours.

Of course, it'll probably be Hilary. I don't know what the hell America's gonna make of Hilary.

I do have strong hopes for Obama in 2012, but the cynic in me says that America isn't ready to elect a black kid with a goofy-sounding name to the presidency just yet. I would be pleasantly suprised if they did...

[$iljanus]

One thing they need to do is shift back to morals and start taking religious folks more seriously. My perception is that the left sees the religious voter as a crackpot evangelical, when in fact a very large portion of this country falls into a more moderate religious stance. These people don't take some of the more extreme views of the so-called religious right, but at the same time they place a large emphasis on morals and family values. As a perfect example, Kerry's stance on gay marriage could very well have cost him Ohio. We've seen nine out of 10 states now ban gay marriage - these aren't crackpots and fringe elements passing these amendments.

Heh, when I was riding into work today I had similar thoughts. Like the way intellectuals are not all elitist not all families from the heartland who are religious are Creationists. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions and gay marriage but I wonder if San Francisco which brought the issue front and center put a serious dent in the Democrats. I remember talking to a friend of mine who is gay and lives with her partner around the time of the San Francisco civil unions. She was more in favor of distinguishing civil unions from marriage because of the possible backlash.

On the other hand, I never liked the concept of gay people having second class citizen status. And if I were gay I would wonder how patient I would be?


Oh, and no damn Hillary in 2008. The "right wing conspiracy" mantra does not work for the Democratic party!

[Dramatist]

I forgot Michael Moore. How could I forget Michael Moore. I think the Democratic party should ask him not to help next time.

I'm sure the party mainstays like him well enough, but he, no doubt, turns off moderates and independants.

[Beer Goggles]

All my Republican friends hope Terry McAuliffe keeps his job.

[The Mad Hatter]

I think this election showed that it's better to be seen as having strong views that people disagree with than as someone who will compromise for their own self-interest. It also showed the value of party unity and appealing to the core voters. The Dem platform was riddled with contradictions - a pro-war candidate struggling to keep anti-war voters happy, waffling stands on gay marriage and gun control, etc.

I also think YK's prescription is a recipe for disaster. The worst thing the Dems can do is continue down the "Republican Lite" route. They need to define themselves, not let themselves be defined as they have been for so long. Take strong stands on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, foreign adventurism. Get people to the polls because they support what the party stands for, not because they hate the other guy. How many Dems actually voted for Kerry last night, rather than against Bush? Stop compromising and start fighting for a different vision.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Move to Canada. Or perhaps France.

[geezer]

One thing they need to do is shift back to morals and start taking religious folks more seriously. My perception is that the left sees the religious voter as a crackpot evangelical, when in fact a very large portion of this country falls into a more moderate religious stance. These people don't take some of the more extreme views of the so-called religious right, but at the same time they place a large emphasis on morals and family values. As a perfect example, Kerry's stance on gay marriage could very well have cost him Ohio. We've seen nine out of 10 states now ban gay marriage - these aren't crackpots and fringe elements passing these amendments.

That's fine, and you are right in that the left has allowed the right to co-opt the "values" thing and has, to a large extent, painted the left as somehow being against good moral values. In reality though, I think the difference is one of wanting to *legislate* values vs. not wanting to legislate values. It's a tough road for the left to go down because the argument (like much of the left's platform) is much more subtle than what the right works with and as such is a) harder to grasp b) harder to define and c) easier to attack.

I'm absolutely NOT not casting the right as a bunch of simpletons, but rather simply saying that from my perspective conservatism is a more accessible, straightforward stance for most people to take and in a sound-bit culture, that's hard to overcome.

[malchior]

We've seen nine out of 10 states now ban gay marriage - these aren't crackpots and fringe elements passing these amendments.

This is what scares me. If it was the fringe that was pushing gay marriage and the fringe that was rejecting that concept I don't think it would be so bad. But, actually going out and amending constitutions to discriminate is craziness. Things can only go down from here.

[noun]

Give up. Somehow, Taliban-like conservatism has become the mainstream in this country. You can't fight zealots with logic.

[$iljanus]

I also think YK's prescription is a recipe for disaster. The worst thing the Dems can do is continue down the "Republican Lite" route. They need to define themselves, not let themselves be defined as they have been for so long. Take strong stands on gun control, abortion, gay marriage, foreign adventurism. Get people to the polls because they support what the party stands for, not because they hate the other guy. How many Dems actually voted for Kerry last night, rather than against Bush? Stop compromising and start fighting for a different vision.

I agree with the qualifier that it had better find someway to include the churchgoing folk from all those Midwestern and Southern states as well. Or at least the ones from states with alot of electorial votes.

And this is part of the challenge that Dems face: (taken from Geezer's post)

I'm absolutely NOT not casting the right as a bunch of simpletons, but rather simply saying that from my perspective conservatism is a more accessible, straightforward stance for most people to take and in a sound-bit culture, that's hard to overcome.

[Mr. Sparkle]

We've seen nine out of 10 states now ban gay marriage - these aren't crackpots and fringe elements passing these amendments.

This is what scares me. If it was the fringe that was pushing gay marriage and the fringe that was rejecting that concept I don't think it would be so bad. But, actually going out and amending constitutions to discriminate is craziness. Things can only go down from here.

See my post. I hear the chicks in Sweden are hot, and wantonly destroy marriage. Seriously, how hard is it to emmigrate to Scandinavian countries? Is Swedish a hard language to learn?

[Dramatist]

I think this election showed that it's better to be seen as having strong views that people disagree with than as someone who will compromise for their own self-interest. It also showed the value of party unity and appealing to the core voters. The Dem platform was riddled with contradictions - a pro-war candidate struggling to keep anti-war voters happy, waffling stands on gay marriage and gun control, etc.

That's all well and good but I'm not sure that would have won for them this year. I do believe that Edwards would have won spouting the same platform as Kerry, just because Edwards has a little more charm and he's from the south.

[malchior]

Here's one thing that bothers me alot about Democrats. They seem overly mean spirited. I'm not talking about the politicians now, but the supporters within the party. I'm not too bothered by poking fun of the politicians themselves either (although I think the Bush is an idiot humor has never been funny). The way a lot of Democrat supporters say that Republican voters are idiots, Hillary Clinton's "vast right wing conspiracy" talk and Hollywood's Republican bashing really irks me. I don't wanna be associated with that.

I realize that I'm painting with broad strokes and Republicans are guilt of this type thing too, but it appears to me that Democrats are worse. That, as I've said, really bugs me.

Turn on AM radio some time. It's seething with Republican hate. Democratic negativity is bad too but I can't think of any format where the hate is so one-sided or obvious, though Air American with Franken(who I loathe) is trying to make hate inroads.

[Vegetable Man]

I forgot Michael Moore. How could I forget Michael Moore. I think the Democratic party should ask him not to help next time.

I'm sure the party mainstays like him well enough, but he, no doubt, turns off moderates and independants.

Yes, I forgot about this,too. Please oh please, Dems, denounce this nutjob from your party and you'll at least make one more step towards my vote(but you'll hafta make a lot more).

All my Republican friends hope Terry McAuliffe keeps his job.

Agreed. Talk about a guy I'd never want to have a beer with, perhaps only slightly less annoying than Micheal Moore, but as head of the party, jaaah-aaaa-zuuusss.... What are the dems thinking????

Of course, the Dems problems run much deeper than this. I would never have voted for Kerry on healthcare, nor his running mates protectionist leanings, among others.

[The Mad Hatter]

I think this election showed that it's better to be seen as having strong views that people disagree with than as someone who will compromise for their own self-interest. It also showed the value of party unity and appealing to the core voters. The Dem platform was riddled with contradictions - a pro-war candidate struggling to keep anti-war voters happy, waffling stands on gay marriage and gun control, etc.

That's all well and good but I'm not sure that would have won for them this year. I do believe that Edwards would have won spouting the same platform as Kerry, just because Edwards has a little more charm and he's from the south.

Edwards came off as a lightweight to me, a wannabe Clinton without his charisma and political savvy. Another hollow compromise choice.

[Dramatist]

Turn on AM radio some time. It's seething with Republican hate. Democratic negativity is bad too but I can't think of any format where the hate is so one-sided or obvious, though Air American with Franken(who I loathe) is trying to make hate inroads.

I'll agree with you there about AM radio. But AM radio is not intrusive in my everyday life unless I make a concious choice to turn it on. Hollywood is in my everyday life, be it movies or TV, talk shows, news and magazines. There is no easy way to escape it.

[YellowKing]

I'm not advocating that the Dems change their views to a conservative stance to "fit" the political spectrum. But they need to do some reaching out somewhere in order to bridge the gap.

Coming from the South and brought up in a Baptist church, I know the general political feelings down here. Whether it's true or not, the *perception* of the left (primarily on the national scene) is that they are out to stamp out Christian values, or at the very least have little regard for them. The Hollywood leftist lifestyle is not lost on these people. These people are also fiercely patriotic, and the traditional perception of Democrats being softer on defense doesn't sit very well.

The reason Bush not only kept his base from 2000 but actually increased it in many areas of the South is that these people felt threatened - not only from abroad, but from here at home. They felt a threat to their core values. Better a President who they disagree with on a few things but who largely shares their faith than a President who they perceive as an active threat to those beliefs.

Now, logically I know that the left's position is less one of not embracing these values, and more one of not LEGISLATING these values. However, like geezer pointed out, this is a very difficult balancing act. How do you come out against legislating these values without looking like (at best) you're detached from them or (at worst) that you actively oppose them?

I think Kerry tried (half-heartedly) to try to break some of these perceptions, but he was fighting an uphill battle from the start. The idea that only Southern Democrats can win the Presidency is probably truer now more than ever.

[Tareeq]

Second everything the Mad Hatter said.

I'll add that I'd have given Dean more consideration than I gave Kerry, who has always struck me as an unprincipled scoundrel. I'd have voted for Lieberman without a second thought, and perhaps Gephardt. All of them lost to Kerry in part because they weren't willing to say anything to get the nomination.

But my party made it easy for me. The question right up until I voted was whether it would be Badnarik or Bush.

Edwards is dead. He has no power base. He'll be lobbying for ATLA in six months. With 4 more years' more seasoning he might have made a powerful challenger, but North Carolina wouldn't have given him 4 more years, because he ran out on us. He's out of office, and he's not a heavyweight like Gore or Giuliani, who could strongly consider running as private citizens.

I hope someone is tutoring Obama in foreign policy as we speak, because the alternative is Hillary.

Unrelated side note: who was the sucker the Dems conned into running against McCain? I didn't even know McCain was on the ballot until I started watching returns.

[LordMortis]

As a perfect example, Kerry's stance on gay marriage could very well have cost him Ohio.

This is Ohio. If you don't have a brewski in your hand you might as well be wearing a dress.

I, for one, don't think the democrats should change. The more they do, the more they become wolves in sheeps clothing, and the same goes for Republicans.

However, if they want to change their perception, then they need to shed their arrogance. Here is the perception they need to change: They need to get off this I know how you ought to lead your life and spend your money attitude better than you do kick. There is nothing in this world worse than a wealthy democrat. They want to tell you how to spend your money and what you causes you should support and they will do it with the same ribid hatred that religious extremists do. At the same time they will do everything they can to shelter and bask in their own life style. So who is doing the advertising for the democrats? That would be the rich democrats, the politicians, the academic who survive off of taxation. Don't worry so much about religious zealotry as I have seen metioned before, we can deal with zealots they are our neighbors and we can sluff them off. Worry about yourselves. You are not our neigbors you are casting decisions from on high. I guess I have to take back a comment from yesterday as I think about it. I do see much of the democratic party mouthpiecing coming from the "elite." I suppose that is why I could have come out with a strong support for Dean. He did not give that impression at all, even though I found myself in heavy disagreement with him, he was really there as a candidate and he was down to earth. He seemed to really follow a code and not preach whom we should be and I knew where I stood with him.

The day the Dems become more fiscally responsible and worry less about enforcing the neverending ways how I should legally be tied to support society and give up my support to people in the know is the day I start to look at the party with more respect. It's also they day they cease to be all of the things democrats have been for as long as I have been alive.

[Dirt]

They need to stop running on hope and start running based upon fear. Going back to what Yellowking said, the religious have always been fed a culture of fear (ie, you will go to hell if you sin, you won't live forever if you sin). The Democrats need to own that.

[LordMortis]

I'd have voted for Lieberman without a second thought

Ouch, Lieberman would have made me tempted to vote for Bush. He is the only one I could have seen as worse than Kerry. (whom I hated voting for)

[The Preacher]

I'll also agree with MH. The Democrats need a vision. They could call themselves the defenders of the Bill of Rights, incl. the 2nd Am, and that would be a huge start. Redefine the party as one's of fiscal conservativism. Frankly, it may not even matter what the vision is provided that they and their candidate "own it".

Let me also add that this is not new. The Democrats are still reeling from Gingrich's movement, a time when the Republicans redefined their image and then stuck with it (for better and worse).

[Dramatist]

However, if they want to change their perception, then they need to shed their arrogance. Here is the perception they need to change: They need to get off this I know how you ought to lead your life and spend your money attitude better than you do kick. There is nothing in this world worse than a wealthy democrat. They want to tell you how to spend your money and what you causes you should support and they will do it with the same ribid hatred that religious extremists do. At the same time they will do everything they can to shelter and bask in their own life style. So who is doing the advertising for the democrats? That would be the rich democrats, the politicians, the academic who survive off of taxation.

That was very well said.

[wire]

If the Democrats have any shot to win in 2008 they better come up with a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

I think any well known Democrat can run for President anymore. It's going to have to be someone who hasn't already scared the bejesus out of the more conservative southern and midwestern states.

[Kraken]

I think the Democrats need to actually start standing for something and having actual plans for what they'd like to do (and share it with people) and quit waffling based on polls etc.

Yes, exactly. They put forward these intelligent, competent managerial types who do not understand the symbollic nature of the office. Ronald Reagan should have taught us all that it's about symbolism and posturing and sloganeering. People want leadership, which means consistent surity of purpose...even if we don't agree with the purpose. Somebody wrote that a Kerry presidency would suffer from "paralysis by analysis", and I think voters all sensed that. What did Kerry stand for? What was his vision of the future, or of our role in the world? Every Democrat has a different answer to that question.

The Republicans are winning the culture war in this country. I think that's a bad thing. Why can't the Dems offer an alternative that I can support? Why are they permanently bogged down in political correctness and special interest groups? If they can't overcome that, they will retreat ever further into irrelevance with every new election.

[Dirt]

I don't think the Republicans are winning the culture war. Britney Spears is winning the culture war and that scares many conservatives.

[Kadoth Nodens]

As far as shaking the "elitist" badge goes, I really don't know how the Dems could do it. Both parties have their elitist snobs, but the righty snobs tell you you can be a snob, too, if you bust your ass more, where the lefty snobs tell you you're ignorant and need their guidance. I'd like to give both groups a swift kick in the ass, but can understand why most folks consider the former less abrasive than the latter.

Now, logically I know that the left's position is less one of not embracing these values, and more one of not LEGISLATING these values. However, like geezer pointed out, this is a very difficult balancing act. How do you come out against legislating these values without looking like (at best) you're detached from them or (at worst) that you actively oppose them?

On an individual candidate basis, I don't think that being seen as detached from religion is an insurmountable obstacle, as long as a candidate is clear about where they stand.

If religion isn't a big part of your life, don't try to fake it. Be clear that you respect people's right to believe what they want, the power of faith, whatever. But it's just too easy to sense when someone is talking out their ass on this. It'll cost you votes, but lying about it will make you come across as a weasel and cost you more.

I think this sort of holds true for the Dems as a whole, too. Don't evern try to play the family and/or Christian values card. It too often comes across as condescending. Acknowledge that it's a Christian dominated countrty, but push that there are plenty of non-Christians as well & it'd be "Unamerican" to force religion down their throats.

[wire]

Acknowledge that it's a Christian dominated countrty, but push that there are plenty of non-Christians as well & it'd be "Unamerican" to force religion down their throats.

That won't work since the christian religious right firmly believe it is their right and their duty to force their religion down non-christians throats whether they like it or not.

I firmly believe that this country is headed towards a morality civil war in this country and it ain't going to be pretty.

[Dramatist]

I think the democrats need some kind of party vision. You definately couldn't point out Kerry's vision, and really Clinton was much the same way. He just felt our pain better.

I believe The Preacher's idea of being the party of the Bill of Rights is as good a place as any to start.

I'll admit I'm Christian, but I want to keep the religion out of government. I believe there's a better way to spread the Christian message than try to legislate it into laws.

I'll state again that it really peeves me when Hollywood people talk down to me about politics. I don't think it's their place at all.

Just because you are lucky/talented enough to get paid lots of money to dress in a costume and play pretend doesn't make you intellectually superior to most people.

[warning]

They need to stop running on hope and start running based upon fear. Going back to what Yellowking said, the religious have always been fed a culture of fear (ie, you will go to hell if you sin, you won't live forever if you sin). The Democrats need to own that.

Anyone but Bush? That was all about fear of four more years.

[Dirt]

They need to stop running on hope and start running based upon fear. Going back to what Yellowking said, the religious have always been fed a culture of fear (ie, you will go to hell if you sin, you won't live forever if you sin). The Democrats need to own that.

Anyone but Bush? That was all about fear of four more years.

The fear Bush was peddling involved death to civilians.

[godhugh]

I was just asked how Bush won by my sister, here's my response (cut and pasted from the e-mail I sent her):

As for Bush, I know how he won. It comes down to a fundamental problem with how we, as Democrats, think. We think we're right, obviously, and that the way we see the world is the majority view and all the Bush supporters have just been snowballed by the GOP Spin Machine. Last night we found out we were wrong. Like it or not, the majority of the country does not agree with us.

What we need to do is to reframe the major issues, starting with "values". For years, the GOP has determined what that word means. In our culture right now values is equated with heterosexuality, religion, and a good handshake. With that definition, the Democrats have no hope of carrying the issue after Clinton. We need to change it. We need to equate "values" with hard work, tolerance, and self-awareness. That's how we can own that issue, which is very important, again.

Also, we need to get rid of the idea that "liberal" is a dirty word. Repubs have made it cool to be conservative. The Democrats need to do the same thing with being liberal. We need to embrace the word, make it our own. Yeah, we're liberal and goddamn proud of it! If we can do that then we take away a major attack strategy of the Republicans (ie: Kerry is the most liberal senator).

Finally, we have to stop being "poll politicians". This is where are ideals and positions vary based on the current opinion polls. This worked for Clinton, but only because he never had a strong challenger and because he's the best speaker of the modern era. It goes hand in hand with my last point. We need to stop reacting and start dictating. We need to say "This is what we're for! We're for gay rights. We're for international cooperation. We're for universal health care. We are for a balanced budget. We are for the environment. Take it or leave it." Voters may not agree with all of the party's stances, but they will respect that we have them. Look at the Repubs. Their base does not agree with the entire platform, but they know where their party stands and they support them because of it. The most identifiable quality of the Democratic Party is "We're not Republicans". That won't cut it.

So, there ya go, that's why Bush won. Now, we've got two years to get our act together. Let's get of our asses and get it done.

[Zarathud]

To me this election showed that if a Democrat will not take a strong stand for civil rights and liberties then the religious right can out mobilize voters. Obama spoke very strongly on this issue and destroyed the fringe man Keyes.

Obama also had the power of persuasion -- he can explain WHY he believes something in addition to giving the sound byte. And even if you don't agree with Obama, you understand his thought process and the integrity behind his position. It's very persuasive, even if you don't agree with him.

I think Kerry's problem was that he didn't talk about about WHY or HOW -- which made him vulnerable to the "liberal" and "flip-flop" labels. And made it hard for him to motivate people with a positive message into being PRO-Kerry. With the religious vote and Catholics voting 50% for Bush, Kerry committed a major blunder by not publicly talking about the moral basis of his personal convictions and his struggles as a Catholic (especially being blackballed by the conservative heirarchy on abortion).

That aside, I think the Democrats need to start persauding people that liberal Democrat does not mean immoral. Start with neutralizing the "abortion issue" by making it a social justice issue -- feed the poor, take care of the sick. True Christian values are about "turing the other cheek" and "doing right" as much as about "not committing murder." Start by going back to the churches and building bridges based on social activism, then building towards politicial activism to protect the good work which has been done. Think Newt Gingrich-style revolution -- start changing the culture, so that the people embrace your viewpoint before the election begins.

Next, the Democrats need some better campaign managers. What struck me while watching ABC was that these talking heads could have been more useful to Democrats running the election strategy. Kerry was too late on the "Bush is Wrong" message. He missed the social issue surge, and didn't have the chance to make an effective case to explain how the bad economy was worsened by Bush's class favoritism. The utter lack of hittting hard on the Cheney/Haliburton and Enron theme was a massive missed opportunity to tarnish Republicans, I think. Kerry reacted too much and didn't set the agenda, and Karl Rove did an impressive job backpedaling and even burying the bad news (through media intimidation with the dreaded "liberal bias" charge and by bribing the owners with changes to the consolidation rules).

Finally, it's time to find some old fashioned charismatic firebrands. Edwards and Dean had the best personalities of the Democratic challengers, but the Democrats need someone with Clinton's "people person" style (which isn't Hillary, even if she didn't have serious political baggage) to persuade people to view Democrats favorably again. A candidate has to wrap up the nomination early and use a well-honed message to persaude people well before the last days of the election.

And as for the under-30 youth, the cannot be relied on as a demographic group or to turn the tide of Reagan-era Republicanism. They made their choice, and it wasn't to vote.

[phishbate]

And as for the under-30 youth, the cannot be relied on as a demographic group or to turn the tide of Reagan-era Republicanism. They made their choice, and it wasn't to vote.

I'm still convinced that they stayed home because they didn't have a candidate, covered by the media, to vote for. The Democrats simply have to do what the Conservative movement did three decades ago. Concentrate funding on think tanks and begin to construct a vison that extends beyond 2-4 year election periods. It looks like the DNC leadership is going to be partially cleaned out now, so maybe they can spearhead an idealogical counterweight to the religious right's ideology.

They need to closely study the Conservative movement and do similar work. Instead of direct mail, they can get Trippi/Dean types to lead the DNC and launch a major, technology instrumented revolution.