Looking down this list, I think the single biggest disagreement that Democrats in general will have with the Perot voters is immigration.  Perhaps it's not a surprise that the Republicans have already decided to make immigration their wedge issue in 2006?  Maybe they've already looked at this group of voters and seen they could turn towards the Dems, so they want to make immigration a big issue so they don't.

I think the strongest statement that this post makes, is just how hungry people are for real change that brings - for lack of a better term - straight talkin', roll up your sleeves action.

The vast majority of America is right there in this category - and let me tell you, this is not a stupid group of people, what with Stem Cell Research approval at 67% now..  we could very well be ready for the 21st century.

I have to say, personally, I love hanging out here at mydd and if I disagree with you, I disagree with you - but posts like this are what I live for.

Imagine for a second, taking your kids to Washington and being able to point to the white house and say with pride. .. "Son, thats where the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES works.." .

I think the best way to look at the Perot numbers is to look at the race before he pulled out in the late spring, after the debates.. Most people had cottoned
to what he was saying by then and thats the core group.

After he pulled out of the race, and re-entered, you've got a different set of voters... quite possibly a small core of savvy voters that figured out his daughter was being set up for a political hit - but the rest of them were by and large ABB

The early Perot voters were the fertile ground, go back a month before pullout and thats where you grow.

I can flesh out a scultpure with the best of them but I need an armature to work from.  I'm tired of having to curb my ideals to help a candidate and won't let it happen again.

So if you want my help...state the democratic platform for the next 2 years.

Tell me who is in charge of technology for the Dems and how I can contribute.

Tell me how the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party will beat the DLC without becoming the DLC.

And do it quickly.

It is critical to be clear about a broad plan by looking at the entire playing field, a battle map is required. In a battle map just as much study is placed on the other side as on ours, then a strategy is formed, debated, looked at and researched. That agreed upon, we have Third-Way's strategy, Barack Obama's way forward, Senator Levin's Iraq strategy, the Jamestown Project and many others.

Scott, what would be neat to do and I might attempt this at Aroused Newsis to create a strategy Battle Map that looks at all of them, the contradictions, what falls short, comparisons on issues and the way forward.

Iraq was not mentioned in the study and I wonder how the Democratic Party should be handling it. Cindy Sheehan would like Democrats to change thier tune on Iraq, specifically Sen. Hillary Clinton. Where is Hillary, is it too early for her to appear as a strong alternative to the Republicans? I don't think so. Why can't she be out there framing the issues, pointing out the inequities, social injustices and economic depression the Republicans are sending us into? The Iraq war is a tough issue.

Finally the report mentions reaching out to the "white rural voter". I agree we have to be inclusive, but not to the detriment or to take for granted the Latino or African-American voters. I attended the "While Democracy Sleeps" panel at Yale and was motivated to believe that we have to plan for how to win back the South. Carville's own homestate, Louisiana voted Republican, Tennessee, Al Gores home state voted Republican. The whole Southeast has to be re-thought.

I do not believe that it is just Hillary Clinton who has to get out and begin positing a new "Contract with America", but it is every Democratic Spokesman, Representative, Senator, State Congressman, Local officials, a United Democratic Front.

However, since it has been almost FIFTEEN years since Perot first came on the scene, it can be foolish to put too much stock in these voters' values.  The 80s and early nineties baby-boom kids are/will be coming of age and there's a lot of em.  And they are socially libertarian, very pro-college education (includes public universities) and overwhelmingly for national healthcare.  They need to know that if Republicans have their way that a woman's right to choose would be over, only the rich would get health care, and the public universities would be defunded and dismantled.

IMO, we should concentrate on getting young and new voters aligned and loyal to the Democrats and get them into the habit of being high-efficacy voters.  Not fly-by-nights.  Create a new and reliable solid Democratic voting bloc.

Carter and Gore did much better with the Evangelical constituency than Kerry.  And we probably can't win the Perot voting bloc.  But 2% here, and 5% there, and pretty soon the political equivalent of the old Everett Dirksen saw becomes apt.

These ARE not Perot voters.   They are GD Democrats who were/are fed up with the freakin party and tried to leave.  This is the GD base of the Democratic Party that they keep calling a bunch of extremists.   We have been trying to tell the Dem beltway boys this, but they don't want to listen.  They just keep on catering to Republican lites in Kansas.  

WE ARE SICK OF DEMOCRATS WHO ACT LIKE REPUBLICANS AND HAVE NO BACKBONE OR CORE DEMOCRATIC VALUES.  Get off the "god" thing and get people back to work, provide them health care, quit letting the corporations go overseas and bail on pensions; protect the GD environment so we don't choke to death or get blown off the planet, educate the children and the workers.  In other words,  try being a Democrat!

Screw Carville and the horse he rode in on.  That sob is DLC all the way and really screwed over Dean.  

"Help" sounds like a handout, and the voters being talked about in this report most assuredly don't want, or think they don't want, that.  They want to be given opportunity, a level playing field, etc, and they want a leader who can relate to them at least on some level.  THey just couldn't buy John Kerry as someone who could ever fathom what it's like to be them.

Unfair to Kerry, who campaigned bettr than I thought he would, and to Bush, who inexplicably gets people to think he's one of them.

I'm not advocating for a "poser" or a Southerner by necessity, but we need to run candidates who relate to ordinary folks and on a platform that is, as other posters have said, about the real values of what used to be the Democratic Party.  WIth the unions gone and wages declining, it's not surprising that the less privileged are turning to Jesus for a post-life reward, as it's hard to see how they can get rewarded on this planet.

I typically vote Libertarian, but Democrats could appeal to me if they pledged to balance the budget without raising taxes (i.e. cut spending modestly), started bringing US troops home from Iraq, Germany, Korea, Japan, etc., stopped siding with Republicans on government invasions of privacy (like the Patriot Act), and defended the 2nd Amendment (along with the 10th.)

I would have considered voting for Howard Dean against George Bush (the most anti-libertarian president in my lifetime), but John Kerry was out of the question.

Excellent post.  

Gathering votes from traditional American Republicans will be difficult.  I for one am a 'reformed-Republican', much like Reagan was a reformed-Democrat, and I fall into the catagory of values that you claim Democrats want to attract.

To win over and reform others, Democrats need to demonstrate true concern for the cultural values of traditional Americans - those who don't watch the debate until it's put on television; those who only listen when it becomes paramount, and we are in such times.  People are listening, let's us not disappoint them.

Democrats need to attract candidates, tough talking centrists, who will remind the boomers of the Perot surge and the Gen Xers of traditional Democratic platforms:  good jobs, clean illegal immigrant-free neighborhoods, and a strong and growing international American presence, etc.  

While I voted for Kerry and check 'Democratic Candidates' on my MASS ballot; I did not believe that he would win over the Nation.  Not one of the major candidates would have.  Why?  Not one of them get's it; you need a Hawkish candidate who will not declare an on-going or concluded war as a mistake.  All wars are mistakes.  But, to tell the people who fougt it and are now in a low-rent job that "your efforts were a mistake, but, I can get you a better wage" is foolishness.

Line up candidates in 2006 who's only impact on traditional citizens is to remind them of partisanship, give them the sense that leftist idiologies are lingering behind the mask, and I am certain the "man-date" will continue for the Republicans.