MyDD :: Why Democrats Lose

Why Democrats Lose

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:23:03 AM EST

Markos at Daily Kos will likely also chime in on this months Washington Monthly article, Fire the Consultants, by Amy Sullivan. It correctly points out the problem the Democratic Party has with its' consultant class, one of the core issues of reform within a book proposal that we're wrapping up. I'm not going to bother with any excerpts, as its one to read entirely. Also, Sullivan mentions Noam Scheiber's like-minded article in TNR regarding Mellman and the 2002 disaster. The defunct disgustedliberal.com has a good excerpt with succinct summary, and a prescient "note to Dems" that follows.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois is our new chief at the DCCC, heading up the candidate recruitment and strategy for the House in 2006. Lets see him blog regularly too. Emanuel says:

"Some people argue about old Democrats and new Democrats," Mr. Emanuel said in explaining his philosophy. "I'm a Vince Lombardi Democrat. Winning is everything."

Good, a Democratic wing of the Democratic Party leader. The first thing Emanuel should do is to pick a new strategy to get out of the minority and into the majority, because the old one has failed five elections in a row. I'd rather like 5 House wins in 2006 than hear promises for 18 months to win a majority, only to lose 3 more seats trying.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 28 Comments :: Post a Comment

fuckin' aye (none / 0)

They don't give a shit about the country. It's all about their fucking rolexes. Fuckers.

by CentrismIsForLosers on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:37:03 AM EST

Re: fuckin' aye (none / 0)

Not fair. It's how the consultants are paid, not the consultants themselves. I'm in contact with a fair number of consultants who are deeply angry at what's going on as well.

by Matt Stoller on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 10:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fuckin' aye (none / 0)

Yea, it's best to name names, which the article does.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell them to start pointing out GOP serial lying (none / 0)

THIS and voting rights are the primary issues. The GOP has turned into a party of serial liars and nobody calls them on it.

It's not just the normal politicians "lie" of vague speak. It's the bizarre new practice of serial lying where the neo-con don't even bother to include any factual information at all. Layered lying in which neo-cons use one lie to prove another lie.

When Dem talking heads appear in the M$M, we have got to start calling neo-cons liars in blunt and certain terms.

by afs on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:30:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tell them to start pointing out GOP serial lying (none / 0)

i want to see more of that too, but i remember one interchange beteen mathews and biden that really stuck out in my mind. they were talking about iraq and biden made some point about the obvious incompetence, and then mathews said, "well, so and so said it's going really well." and then biden said, "c'mon chris you know that's not true."

after a beat, in the crosstalk you can clearly hear chris mumble, "yeah, i know." and then the interview continues. exactly what you're saying, but no one gives a flying poop.

now is biden supposed to interrupt chris and start going "see. they lie, they lie! it's a lie. everyone knows they lie."

at this point, i'm not so sure he shouldn't. it's clear most americans choose to believe whatever they want anyway.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... yeah (none / 0)

You don't quite do it like that, but pretty close. Saying, "they lie, they lie, they lie" is not proving it. Instead, you say, "Evidence A, Evidence B, Evidence C, etc.

We need to make the subject of GOP lying an actual subject of discussion, and show with evidence how bad the GOP has become.

by afs on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 04:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... yeah (none / 0)

we also need the media to get on board with that at least somewhat.

making that case to a media that refuses to hear it can be difficult. even when you have all the evidence in the world.

i mean the media lies just as much as the GOP.

if you're in a room with 5 people who believe 2 + 2 = 5, proving it to them that it really equals 4 can prove futile and pointless real quick.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 05:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: fuckin' aye (none / 0)

definitely. i like to think, as naive as i am, that even those so deeply immersed in the system they don't even know they're doing more harm than good, even they have the best interest of america at heart.

i don't know why i believe that. there's no proof at all.

oh well.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Democrats Lose (none / 0)

My friends, THIS is why Democrats lose! The Louisiana Democratic Party has just elected a new chairman of the State Central Committee. James Bernhard is CEO of The Shaw Group, a fortune 500 company. The Baton Rouge Advocate article contains the following unbelievable passage. "'We need not to have a Republican or Democratic agenda. We need to look forward to having a Louisiana agenda for all people,' Bernhard said." Now, can anyone imagine the head of a state Republican party saying such a thing? This is the language of surrender. This is the language of a loser. Haven't we lost enough? Louisiana Democrats lost a U.S. Senate seat in the last election, for goodness' sake! We "need not" have a Democratic agenda? Really? Then we really need not have a Democratic Party, need we? Way to rally the troops there, Big Jim! The new state chairman of our party is nothing but an appeaser, and the state turns a deeper shade of crimson. I am so sick of these centrist "Democrats" that I could vomit. (http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/010905/pol_demo001.shtml)

by hkanders on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:19:15 AM EST

Democrats (none / 0)

I've become active in my county Democratic party in the past couple of years, and it's been an eye-opening experience. Our county voted for Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04, yet we are getting killed on the local level. The local party has little money, and a lot of deadwood in leadership positions.

I'm coming around to the point of view that the dreadful political situation in this country is not all the fault of the Republicans-- our party has failed miserably in many respects. I'm going to spend a lot less time bitching about the Right and more time helping to re-build our party.

by global yokel on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:26 AM EST

Does Anyone know the Going Rate (none / 0)

for political consultants?

seems we don't have the right infrastructure at the local level. that's pretty darn clear. and if our consultants are overpaid compared to republican consultants, then by all means make the changes. something is rotten there.

cause we're losing these days, it appears most would be for getting rid of all of them just as a matter of just reward.

it just occured to me that republicans are probably paying their consultants the same, probably more, and they're also still able to enjoy a local level infrastructure that we envy. they can do both. why can't we?

there could be more going on here than just overpaid consultants.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:17:15 PM EST

Mark Mellman (none / 0)

I'm sure I wasn't the only one who wondered during the campaign what this guy was doing running Kerry's campaign. After seeing Mellman and Shrum get their clock cleaned by Ken Mehlman on various cable shows I wondered why they couldn't find a better spokesperson. He was so damned centrist he was as exciting as warm spit.

Now I find out he was a huge factor in the 2002 debacle and he got promoted! Christ on a crutch what does it take to wake these bozos up? Dump the entire consultancy apparatchiks and start over from scratch. It's time to dump the warm spit centrists and fire up the damned base.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:27:22 PM EST

Re: Mark Mellman (none / 0)

typically, parties have michael moores and sean hannitys to fire up their base while the official party line leans centrist.

this doesn't seem to work as well for us as it does for the republicans.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Mellman (none / 0)

I may even be confusing Mellman with Tad Devine of Shrum, Devine & Donilon? How incestuous is this consultancy anyway?

I may have missed the centrist party line that Bush/Rove took. What part of their campaign was centrist?

The best line of Amy Sullivan's article:

Yet, instead of abiding by the "seven strikes and you're out" rule, Democrats have continued to pay top dollar for his services (sums that are supplemented by the percentage Shrum's firm, Shrum, Devine & Donilon, gets for purchasing air time for commercials). Although Shrum has never put anyone in the White House, in the bizarro world of Democratic politics, he's seen as a kingmaker--merely hiring the media strategist gives a candidate such instant credibility with big-ticket liberal funders that John Kerry and John Edwards fought a fierce battle heading into the 2004 primaries to lure Shrum to their camps. Ultimately, Shrum chose Kerry, and on Nov. 3, he extended his perfect losing record.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Mellman (none / 0)

their entire RNC convention in ny was centrist. ahnuld. rudy. both pro-lifers. hannitys and coulters spew their hate to the converted, arnold and rudy star during the prime time event on the major networks. even bush says he won't use roe vs. wade as a litmus test, wether you believe him or not, that's what he says. that's their prime time message.

mccain is still republican and backs bush 100% during the prime time event.

etc.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 12:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Mellman (none / 0)

Good point.

by Sam Loomis on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:07:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Winning Is Everything? (none / 0)

Oh really? So its cool that Emanual will look at issues like privitizing social security, supporting or opposing the DLC corporate agenda or supporting the war in Iraq strictly from a political point of view. Does it help us in 2006?
And if he thinks supporting some sort of privitization of social security is good politics, which he does, then that is the agenda the DCCC should follow?

Look, I am a progressive Democrat. Only one thing is EVERYTHING to me, that is promoting the progressive agenda. Now, to be clear, I DO NOT MEAN BY THIS THAT I HAVE A LONG SERIES OF LITMUS TESTS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR THAT I AM OPPOSED TO CONSIDERING (AND BOWING TO) THE POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY OF CERTAIN POSITIONS. But our goal as a party should not be to have Democrats support only what is politically popular for the day-so that if polling shows that Democrats supporting privitizing social security, giving greater tax breaks to wealthy people, cutting spending on poor people and getting more involved in Iraq is good politically, that is what we will support.

Let me put this another way. Dean came out against the Iraq War very early, at a point in time when conventional wisdom was that such position was politically unpopular. Since then, his position has become more acceptable. Soon, it will represent the overwelming majority of people. But let's say that the war had been well planned and that the occupation had much less trouble and was much more popular then now. Let's say that his position really was bad politically. In this hypothetical situation, would his statement have been a mistake if it hurt him politically; if it lead him to losing the nomination?

Finally, isnt "winning is everything" the implied premise of the DLC? Are our differences with them strictly a matter of tactics, such that the people on this site will become DLC fans if convinced that corporatizing the Party will lead to winning? Or are our differences with the DLC moral and philisophical as well as tactical?

A party should consider itself a vehicle to get policy ideas accomplished. Obviously, electing officials is a means to that ends. But the ends can not be merely to get elected, no matter what positions are espoused.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:43:52 PM EST

Very Good Points (none / 0)

there is an obvious tension within these two statements:

o winning is everything.

o we can't give on inch on anything.

for the record, those two statements are not listed in any order of priority.

it would seem there's a certain zeitgeist that says "you can only win by not giving an inch on anything."

sounds great to me. lets do it.

by BiminiCat on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 01:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Winning Is Everything? (none / 0)

If you look at the context within which I approved of it, it was within the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, and that idea that to win 5 as a minority party was better than losing 3 shooting the moon. I am talking strategy, not ideology. Ideology doesn't matter squat to a minority party.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 02:14:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't this contradictory to the notion... (none / 0)

...of "Contest every seat"?

If the Demorcats have 100 million dollars to spend on all congressional races with a Republican incumbent, doesn't it make more sense to spend 10 million dollars each on the ten races we can win, instead of half a million on each and lose them all?

by Geotpf on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 03:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't this contradictory to the notion... (none / 0)

For what it is worth, I put my ideas regarding targeting in a diary entry.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 06:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't this contradictory to the notion... (none / 0)

I advocate a two-prong strategy, allocate most of the resources to the top 5-10 races, but allocate every challenger a sum too. If it's a hundred million, then I'd say put $50M into the top 10, and $50 Million spread out. Look at what happened with Musgrave, she and the RNC had to spend what, $5-8M in defense? If we don't target them all, they gang up on the ones we do.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 11:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That probably makes sense (none / 0)

There probably should be a token canidate in every seat, but unless there's an actual chance of them winning, very little money should be spent on them. I suppose a sure-thing canidate on the other side could die or implode in scandal, and it would be sad if we didn't have anybody to pick up the ball.

by Geotpf on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 03:49:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]