New DNC Chair?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
If the only way to win is to become Republicans, then why bother winning?

Word

2000 showed the dangers of abandoning their base (Nader and all that), if the Dems decide to become simply Republican-Lite, they would still lose.

What is wrong is that liberals have come to be thought of as hand-wringing weenies. We need to bring back the old fiery progressive spirit.

[axi]

Oerdin, I'm getting convinced that you don't know **** about politics (politics in general, not US politics).

When your rival pulls towards his side and you follow towards center and still lose, then next time they pull further to their side and you have to unwillingly follow, while watching your back for other parties filling the vacuum. If the momentum is towards the opponents side, you don't follow it because that way you enhance it. You oppose it, with force enough to maintain your position and perhaps manipulate your position so as to be seen as steady while all the jerkiness in policy is attributed to the other side. Then you try and get the chance to isolate them by making them take the extra step, the one which you're supposed to follow them into, but don't. Once they feel isolated, they will try to swing back, thus reversing their momentum. Once you achieve this, you start pulling towards your direction relentlessly and try to build momentum of your own.

You have to realise that it's not just the people's values that form the positions of the parties, but also that the positions of the parties form the people's values. Who will prevail relies on a game of nerves, where the party that's most confident of it' s capabilities will be the one to lead the curve. It also lies on being in control of opinion shaping channels (media, church, showbiz) but this is another issue.

[Drake Tungsten]

Dean? Great idea.

[OzzyKP]

Another possible solution:

Maybe there isn't a crisis at all. Sure the Democrats ran a centrist in 2000 and lost and Democrats ran a perceived liberal in 2004 and lost. But lost by how much? Not much at all.

I don't think the Democrats are radically wrong on the issues, but American politics have been dumbed down to a shocking degree that elections aren't really about issues anymore. Sadly, they are about personality. If Democrats want to win, they need one.

Bush didn't win because he was right on the issues, he won because voters decided he was "my kind of guy."

[GePap]

Re: Re: New DNC Chair?

Originally posted by PLATO


See...That's the problem with most Democrats...and why they keep loosing elections. Find someone near the center and your party will begin to rebound. When you polarize the country by going with leftist leaders then the "silent majority" will knee jerk conservative. If the Dems would go more to the middle then the "silent majority" would stay home and watch TV during elections.

Dean is just more of the same...and the Dems will get more of the same results.

Right- you do know that McAuffile was "the center" - he was one of those Democratic Leadership Council clinton dems, and he has precided over an endless string of loses.

The dems need to counter the cultural class warfare Republicans have become masters at waging- there is nothing they can do or should do to try to convince voters more concerned about the life of some fetus or whether two people they don;t know of the same sex decide to be uin a union called family, but are willing to see their wages stagnate- Dems need to work more on florida and the Mountain states- screw the south.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Another possible solution:

Maybe there isn't a crisis at all. Sure the Democrats ran a centrist in 2000 and lost and Democrats ran a perceived liberal in 2004 and lost. But lost by how much? Not much at all.

I don't think the Democrats are radically wrong on the issues, but American politics have been dumbed down to a shocking degree that elections aren't really about issues anymore. Sadly, they are about personality. If Democrats want to win, they need one.

Bush didn't win because he was right on the issues, he won because voters decided he was "my kind of guy."

I think there is a LOT of truth in that. And seeing that, I wonder if now Edwards would have been a much better candidate. He's much more personable and more "my kind of guy". Our Presidential elections have seemingly stopped being about the issues.

[pchang]

Hilary certainly has a lot of personality. This is all going according to her plan. Of course, I think her personality is nasty, but she certainly has plenty of it.

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: Re: New DNC Chair?

Originally posted by GePap
screw the south.

That strategy seems to be workng like gangbusters thus far.

[Boris Godunov]

McAuliffe should have been ousted in 2002, along with Daschle from the Senate leadership position. They have both been disasters for the Democrats, whether it be Daschle's craven spinelessness or McAuliffe's oily used car salesman m.o. Good riddance to both.

[mrmitchell]

Al Sharpton

[Dinner]

Originally posted by axi
Oerdin, I'm getting convinced that you don't know **** about politics (politics in general, not US politics).

When your rival pulls towards his side and you follow towards center and still lose, then next time they pull further to their side and you have to unwillingly follow, while watching your back for other parties filling the vacuum. If the momentum is towards the opponents side, you don't follow it because that way you enhance it. You oppose it, with force enough to maintain your position and perhaps manipulate your position so as to be seen as steady while all the jerkiness in policy is attributed to the other side. Then you try and get the chance to isolate them by making them take the extra step, the one which you're supposed to follow them into, but don't. Once they feel isolated, they will try to swing back, thus reversing their momentum. Once you achieve this, you start pulling towards your direction relentlessly and try to build momentum of your own.

You have to realise that it's not just the people's values that form the positions of the parties, but also that the positions of the parties form the people's values. Who will prevail relies on a game of nerves, where the party that's most confident of it' s capabilities will be the one to lead the curve. It also lies on being in control of opinion shaping channels (media, church, showbiz) but this is another issue.

I respect your opinion but after reading your post I feel you are off base. You win elections by having your positions and values coincide with the majority of voters. The Democratic Party has a great history of being centerists under Clinton, Kennedy, and FDR so it makes historical sense for them to return to their historical rootes. If the Democrats have a southern centrist of the Clinton model as the candidate in 2008 then they will win. If they opt of a leftist like Kerry or Dukakus then again then they will lose. Such candidates cannot win national office.

I assure you that the last 30 years of political experience says that Democrats need centrist southerners to win the Presidency.

[pchang]

Do the politicians serve the people?
If you answered yes, then Oerdin's approach appears to be the correct one.
Are the people sheep to be led by right minded politicians?
If you answered yes, then Axi's approach appears to be the correct one.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I assure you that the last 30 years of political experience says that Democrats need centrist southerners to win the Presidency.

Yet, presumably, a northern Republican can still win. And a decidedly non-centrist one can still win.

What you suggest puts the Democrats in the rather unpalatable position that they must always nominate someone from a red state to win. The wiser action is do what the Republicans have done: reframe the issues to give them more viable electoral coalitions that don't rely so much on the given home state of the candidate, nor the nuances of his ideology (I defy you to find that much difference in policy between Clinton and Kerry).

Virginia is ripe for Democrat picking, thanks to the influx of progressives into the DC suburbs. North Carolina, Nevada and Ohio are also places where the Democrats can start working on building a winning combination of electoral votes.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Democratic Party has a great history of being centerists under Clinton, Kennedy, and FDR so it makes historical sense for them to return to their historical rootes.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by pchang
Do the politicians serve the people?
If you answered yes, then Oerdin's approach appears to be the correct one.

Hmmm.... I vote for this one as it was the intention of the founding fathers.