Chris, I think you've mostly got it covered here. A focus on competence and public responsiveness to the real problems of Americans is probably the Democrats' best strategy in the short term, and feeds in to a lot of the other themes--e.g. the disastrous and confusing Medicare Part D is a direct outgrowth of what happens when you legislate explicitly for the special interests.

But I'd respectfully urge you to think a bit more broadly about point #2, the "values" question.

I don't think the focus should be on "talking values," otherwise known as to appeal to white Christians who go to church regularly.

If this is how you define it, I agree with you. But most people view the question of "values" a bit more broadly. This debate, like that over national security, is one Democrats need to address head-on. The point isn't to suck up to church-going whites; it's to convince all voters, in the face of hardcore propagandizing from Fox News, Mullah Dobson and the rest of the Dominionist Right, that you're not a moral monster even if you disagree with them.

To use the Kaine example, since you brought it up, what Kaine's God talk did was neutralize the hot-button issue of capital punishment. As a devout Catholic, Kaine's opposition to the death penalty came from the same place as his anti-choice views; this year, I suspect (well, I hope) you'll see Bob Casey make the same argument when he talks about economic justice and preserving opportunity.

"Values" broadly, and religion in particular, is best viewed as a way to frame our issues, from national health insurance to using war only as a last resort in foreign affairs, to voters who have been misled about what Democrats believe and fight for. The African-American church gets this; even as an agnostic who was born Jewish, I've never grasped why white liberals don't.

Our party is a loose committee run by party surrogates; until this basic structural defect is corrected no single issue will make much of difference. One only has to look at the lost opportunities of the last two years (S.S. aside) to see we have no cohesive collaboration within the party caucus.  Somehow discipline has given way to individual stance. Every issue you mentioned above supposes that it will be implemented with cohesion and discipline, and I just do not see that happening. I'm afraid we are in a rebuilding phase that will take two to four cycles to correct, and that may even be optimistic given the self preservation of the "insiders".

We need phases and talking points,that every Dem repeats no matter what the question is.

Example would be on providing access to affordable health care.

We should hear this everyday-"Every American has a right to affordable health care"

"Social Security was in good shape until the Republicans spent the money in the SS lock box."

Talking values: As someone else said, "talking values" is not the same as "pandering to church values".  Talking Values is a key strategy because Liberal values fundamentally are American values.  Stuff like support for education, honesty among public officeholders, being pro-civil liberties, etc.  That stuff is the core of what makes America, America.  If we don't stand up and say "Hey, being a liberal isn't a bad thing: it's all these X Y Z plain old American things," then we lose, and deservedly so.

Internal Reform: I'll second the notion that we have to help Dean clean the Democratic house.  We can hardly "live our values" if our own house is as full of underhanded, sneaky backroom crap like what the party did to Paul Hackett.  That shit simply cannot be allowed to stand.

Root Causes: I've said many times (if not here on MyDD specifically) that one of the deepest root causes for the horrible "image is everything" political climate we have is the plurality system itself.  The simple way we tally our ballots to determine a winner has caused, largely via the spoiler effect, a political dynamic to emerge which favors negative campaigning and personal attacks over positive, issue-based campaigning as the easier route to electoral success.  It's a root cause, and I'm all in favor of fixing root causes first, because it makes cleaning up the symptoms (negativity in politics, and the attendant backroom corruption you get when image is all that matters) tons and tons easier.  All of which is my way of saying that the best, most effective, and deepest route to creating lasting change in the electorate is to switch to a voting system that encorages issue-based debate and penalizes attack-politics.  Any of the systems (IRV, or the many Condorcet methods) which allow voters to rank all the candidates from 1 to N achieve this.  Honestly, if the magic genie gave me a wish to change exactly 1 thing about politics in America, I'd use my wish to switch us to a better election method.  (personally, I'd choose a Condorcet method, although I know that the mass sentiment seems to be lining up behind IRV.)

This is the message Dems can rally around.

The Bush administration and Republicans in general think they are above the law and accountable to no one.

Holding irresponsible people to account resonates with Americans.

It's a simple message:
No one is above the law and, as Democrats, we will
make sure the government is accountable and is held accountable to you, the electorate, no ifs ands or buts.

And we have a useful comparison that many voters remember, Nixon. Trot out tricky Dick and remind Americans what it was like when the president and his administration thought they were above the law. So many of the current Bush policies have their genesis in Nixon's WH.

While I think the culture of corruption is important, I fear that Americans who aren't partisan one way or another pretty much look at both parties as being as crooked whether it's true or not or the scale differs. What I think really needs to be hammered away at is the Republican's utter incompetence on practically every issue -- and when we talk about that we have to be ready to say what we would do differently.

I have to disagree a little bit here.

Sure, in depth 20-bullet policy platforms by themselves don't win elections, but policy proposals like, say, support of a national clean elections law can reinforce strategies to brand yourself as a reformer. Or support for an increase in the minimum wage or stronger labor laws can signal "worker-friendliness"

Further, what do you plan to do once you've won? Do you just hash out proposals on the fly once you're in office (you know, like Clinton's health care fiasco in '93-'94)? Successful big policy departures (like Medicare, say) were pushed by Democrats in the 1950s, a decade before they ever got passed. How can you develop political momentum in favor big policy changes like, say, universal health insurance, if you don't campaign on them?

Even if this stuff doesn't get through to the public at large too easily, it does influence the media and political elites who set the national agenda in large part.

Can't we walk and chew gum at the same time? Put together an agenda that helps us brand ourselves to the public at large while setting the stage for big changes we want to make once we acquire power?

I'm afraid if we ignore this we'll just be spinning our wheels even if we do end up back in power.

Here are my two cents and they focus on the culture of corruptiom.

I believe that our party has a lot to gain by picking one ethics/CFR bill and pushing for it no matter what.  Ethics should not be negotiated.  We need a firm stance and clear distinction between the wishy washy and watered down McCain style reform bills.  Reform as you point out plays well to large masses of the electorate.  If we can paint the Republicans as defending the status quo corruption, we will do well.  It would be key to shut down any weak Republican moved bill and take a stance that it just isn't good enough for the American public.

I strongly believe in grassroots organizing. Because many people just do not care that much about/follow politics. They vote the way their friends do. The way their family does. The way their neighbors do. The way their coworkers do. We are very atypical here because of our interest in politics and the process of elections, and what works for us does not necessarily work for the masses.

I think the DNC's precinct organizing strategy is spot on. We need a precinct captain for every precinct in the country. And they are responsible for building a network in their precinct: finding the strong Dems and banding together to reach out to their neighbors. That's the best, lasting way to change hearts and minds, not ad buys or direct mail or anything else.

I suspect most voters have a person or persons in their world, who they see as "political experts". Maybe it's their brother. Maybe it's their local paper's editorial page. Maybe it's Rush or Hannity (shudder). And those voters are influenced by their perceived experts when it comes to election time. (See Gladwell's The Tipping Point - good book.) We can't compete against all that unless we show up in their world too.

Grassroots organizing is hard. And scary, especially the first time you knock on your neighbor's door or make that phone call and bring up the dreaded subject of politics. That's probably why so many candidates and organizations shy away from it. It's a lot easier to set up a website or do an email blast or buy an ad or go on a talk show, than face down your friends and family and risk rejection. But we've got to do it if we want to win elections again.

So my #1 suggestion is to build out that structure and start that work. Candidates can do whatever on TV, but in the end it won't matter nearly as much as what friends and neighbors are saying about them. I think Dean and the new DNC get it. It remains to be seen whether all the other groups out there get onboard too.

It's good that people are differentiating between parties and think that change is possible.  Which makes it all the more important for us (as a party) to ensure that actual change DOES happen, otherwise it'll all fall flat.

With Hillary lurking in the wings? Anybody thought that one through?

Me, personally, I think we don't win shit with the Clintonistas at the Party helm.

My 2 suggestions (in addition to Bower's)

- Articulate a truly coherent message. Dems have a tendency to push a zillion different messages and nuances on the electorate. Let's stop doing that. All we need is: Freedom, Security, Prosperity - For All. These are our values. "Freedom" is the most promising value right now, when Republicans are giving up on civil liberties and individual rights in their post-9/11 fantasy world. We would benefit enormously, I think, from giving up on gun control. If we are pro-gun then we are pro-freedom in every way - and our message becomes more coherent and less muddled. We would have a much bigger appeal on libertarians.

- Find leaders that can speak straight/forcefully and are populists to the bone. I'm talking about Dean, Schweitzer, Tester and Hackett (minus the hyperbole) here. Pelosi, Kerry and Hillary are all  decent politicians but they should not represent our party in the media. No weak talk ever from a Democrat. Just telling the truth, plain and simple. Less nuance, more force and passion.

You left out the essential right wingnut phrases "the antichrist" before her name and "spawn of satan" after.

Uh-huh. Yes. But who is gonna hang this bell around the cat's neck?

I realize this is not what you're asking about, but since we in the blogosphere ascribe to the 50-state strategy and work for the long-term health of the Democratic Party, you should also consider something that can create a change election in 2006 that can also be used in 2008 to convince people that "yea, Democrats are in charge now, but things are going pretty well and you want to keep us in charge now."  Or else it could just as easily be another change election the other way.

I'm thinking Health Care could be that issue.  As has been pointed out before a few times on MyDD, the polling indicates that people really dislike Medicare Part D.  Hey guess what is one of the Democrats' best issues!  We can tie the health care disaster around the GOP's neck this time around, and then next time around show people the work we're doing to fix it and make it better.

I went to a rally yesterday at Bryn Mawr college, which included Ed Rendell along with Lois Murphy, Joe Sestak, Mike Gerber, Josh Shapiro, Bryan Lentz and a some other democrat candidates.  There is much to report about this meeting, but my time is limited right now.  One take away, however, relates to your "values" issue.

Rendell spoke about the Republicans owning the values issue, but that there was no necessity for that.  What he said most eloquently was that it has less to do with religion than with basic humanitarian values. He said that although he was not religiously active, he knew the Old and New Testament pretty well and whereas you see practically nothing about abortion or gay marriage in it, on nearly every page it talks about feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and attending to the poor.

The take away line, which I loved, was this:  The Democrats are the "golden rule party."

Do unto others ....  It's a simple thought, something everyone understands.

I'd start with "It's Enough- Republicans are finished and obsolete now" as the starting point.

There are really only five or six fundamental issue areas.  Don't get bogged down in the subissues- take the central one in each area and answer it right off the bat.

> Iraq: Not a democracy, not going to be a democracy anytime soon.  It's not worth more torture, killings, or money.  
>The solution to Iraq: withdraw to safe haven zones, let them have their civil war, then let the UN peacekeep it and nurse it to a functional democracy.
>Social policy:  We stand for the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  They deny it exists.
>Economic policy: They're bankrupting us.  End the stupid tax cuts for the richest, the rest is easy to fix.
>Ethics: We have real ethics.  They're all crooks.
>Terrorism: Are you safer than you were five years ago?  When is the next Al Qaeda attack, and where?

My suggestions

1) Talk about values. I agree this is often code for going for the church crowd (If I can put it that way), but what I mean is each candidate honestly talking about their values; what matters to them and not complex policy initiatives. "I believe in XXXX and that is what I will use to vote on."

2) Don't hide who and what you are - I am a Progressive Democrat (or whatever). This goes well with #1.

3) Stop bad mouthing individuals (Bush, Rove, Coulter, and the random evil Republican of the month). But do keep mentioning they are in charge and what they are doing. "The Republicans in Congress don't care about deficits, just tax breaks."

Joe

Change the storyline. Republicans are incompetent freeloaders. Exhibit A:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?sect ion=root&name=ViewPrint&articleI d=11174

Oh, and Republicans control Congress.

I like your number 7, but I would add H-E-A-L-T-H  C-A-R-E.

I agree with much of what you've said except on foreign policy.  In a long-term sense, it's incredibly important to be perceived as being the right party on defense.  It's even more important that the U.S. actually have a good defense strategy because if we keep inflaming the entire Muslim world, not securing the nuclear materials in the former Soviet countries and not guarding ports, a nuclear weapon is going to go off in the U.S.; it's only a matter of time.  So we need to be pushing good policies now.

As has been noted a lot in the comments, the platform that we win elections on is really important (even if, as you say and I agree with you, it's not a detailed platform) in order for us to govern.  To that end, if Dem candidates run on platforms that include the foreign policy ideas that we all generally agree on--turning Iraq over to Iraqis, securing nuclear materials, securing ports--they'll have a much better chance of actually getting them done once elected.  It seems to me that this is really important for actual governance, if not elections.

As far as elections go, it'll be one big pain in the ass if Democrats in 2056 have to deal with the same perception of Republicans as better on defense than Democrats that Democrats in 2006 have to deal with.  Seems to me that there's no time like the present to start changing that.

Combine #3 and #7 with an ethics war.  Get someone to break the ethics truce shortly before the 60 day deadline, and watch congressional approval drop 10 more points.  Combining that with telling people that Republicans are in charge should create a pretty strong desire for change.

Maybe I'm biased since I'm from New Orleans, but I think that we should be pounding away about Katrina.

As far as I'm concerned, there are only four issues for this election: Iraq, Katrina, Corruption, and Healthcare(specifically the Medicare debacle).

You hit those again and again and again, because they hit all the negative elements of a Republican government.

Iraq: Dead American soldiers in the pursuit of what cause, exactly? Gross mismanagement from the administration. Billions of dollars that have just disappeared. Whoops! Cronyism and Halliburton's ultra-expensive contracts. Lack of body armor. Greeted as liberators? Kidnapped and exploding journalists!

Katrina: Dead American citizens for what reason, exactly? Gross mismanagement. Cronyism and no-bid contracts. Journalists can make it to New Orleans, but FEMA can't find their way? Trucks of ice driving from state to state, winding up in Maine. Exploding gas prices, and oil execs testifying without being under oath. Heckuva Job Brownie the Horse Judge. And Dennis Hastert, third in the line of succession, saying that a major American city probably should not be rebuilt!

Corruption: Dead social reforms for what reason, exactly? $$$$$$$$$$$ Jack Abramoff. Minority citizens are "troglodytes." Congressmen selling votes, the routing of a representative democracy. Cronyism and more cronyism. Energy companies writing energy policies. Frist insider trading.

Healthcare: Almost-dead elderly people for what reason, exactly? Change in policy! Meds no longer covered! Whoops! Gross mismanagement. States bailing out the Federal government. Exploding cost of "reforms". Can't buy drugs from Canada, though! Cronyism. Insurance companies writing healthcare policies. Frist sneaking protection for drug companies into legislation.  

And those are just the first images that come to my mind. All those instances of GOP incompetence and criminality, covered by four words...

Iraq Katrina Corruption Healthcare

Clearly differentiating ourselves...

I'd say this is a harder problem than you think.  Right now the populace may note that there are differences between parties, but when the campaigning gets rolling, and the media begins highlighting double talk, or Dem candidates begin sounding vacuous, then we are back to the old, "same ole shit--they're all the same" response.  

So the expression of human values (as discussed here by other posters) and the need to convince people we have a vision (if not in 20 point plans) is what will truly cement the differences in the minds of the electorate.

Character matters.  Not the character matters bullshit about Bill Clinton, but the character embodied in Cheney shooting an old man in the face then lying/hiding/denying/spinning about it.

The character about standing up for what's right, not for the party.  The character  of Sy Hersh, not of Judy Miller.  The character of Scout Prime in New Orleans, not rick santorum in PA doing a Randy Cunningham.

Of course, it would help if the Democrats started doing that with any regularity, but hey, you work with what brung ya, right?

Never mind, I don't think we can win on character until we have a few more victories, a few more challengers that start the process of enforcing discipline a bunch of wayward cats.  Which explains the Senate Dems problem, doesn't it, what with Kitty Kevorkian as Majority leader, no?

i think the democratic party can win by doing this ...

get a big pile of reasonable, intelligent, wise, serious democrats in a room, a cross-section of the democratic party.  ask them this one simple question - what would make america better ?

and then make them sit there and talk about it for days upon days, and weeks, after taking away their cell phones and poll numbers and all their other crutches.  at first they'll argue, which is good.  later some of them will be smiling and others will be really angry, also good.  later there will be a few who want to take their toys and go home but most of the majority is going to be thinking, hey, we've got something here.  and then finally there'll be some crazy ass 10% of the folks that are just flaming mad and a seperate majority of what i'll call normal folks who actually have a real agenda, a positive plan to make the world a better place and america there in it.  then you get that 10% that's mad and kick their asses out and discredit their crazy ass stuff everytime you get the chance as a bunch of wacko non-sense, distancing yourself as much as possible.  and you take what's left, the plan, and take out the most important parts, and that's the master plan.

then you take this great plan you made and stand up in front of the world and say, here it is, we all got together on this thing and this is it, this is what we really think would make the world a better place.  and since you actually fought it out and have a consensus and it's righteous and has some backbone then it will stand up to all the attacks launched at it, and people will have to actually say something intelligent about it if they want to fight against it.  but the most important thing is that it's righteous and not a lot of reactionary horse sh*t, or answering attacks being launched from the republicans, or reacting to the news cycle, or whatever ... but that it is instead an actual positive plan put together by bright minds with the real hope of doing right by the american people, i mean really right by them.  not ideological non-sense or anti-right-wing non-sense or let's get elected non-sense but actual SENSE, some real plan that everyone is behind that has spirit in it and is strong in essence and beauty.  hell i'd like to see it, i'd like to see the plan myself!

and then you stand by it.  and you tell the voters about what you want to do.  and you keep saying it, over and over and over, at every opportunity.  and you do it in a suit with a clean shirt with a serious expression of warmth and sincerity on your face .. and you leave the attack ads at home, and you leave the hollywood stars in hollywood.  and you don't get upset and start reacting to republicans when they hit you, you just stick with the message and keep sticking with it, keep saying it, over and over.  and then when it comes time to vote ... the voters go into the polls, and they either like what you said, or they don't.  they either like your plan and want it implemented, or they don't.  but at least you can stand tall and say hey, this is what we're about, we're not going to roll around in the dirt just to get into a street fight ... this is our plan, and we're standing by it .. and if you don't like it, then vote for the other guy.

Here's what I would add to your list, Chris:

9. Message: "Republicans are greedy." The current corruption scandals make for a great opportunity not just to win elections this year, but to finally re-open a long-standing national debate. Simply put, Reagan said, "It's your money," and Democrats have never had an answer that resonated. It's time to bring the Reagan Democrats to finally understand that they made a mistake in 1980. Dems can do that by pointing to the failure of trickle-down economics and to the policies that have ended up lining the fat cats' pockets. The evidence? The weakness of the economic recovery, and the record profits of the oil companies and the health insurance companies at the expense of consumers.

(By the way, a couple of months ago, someone said that the Republican's priorities we "1. me 2. me 3. me ..." That was meant as a joke, but I think it should be the Democratic campaign slogan. It's simple and effective.)

10. Message: "We are the party of compassion." Over the last few decades, the Democrats have lost the support of the religious conservatives, who used to vote Democratic quite consistently. It's because the Republicans managed to brand themselves as the party of God. It's time that the Dems take that mantle back, not as the party of God (we know they can't do that), but as the party of morality and compassion. Take almost any political issue, and it can be viewed through the greed/compassion frame. The Republicans appeal to people's greed (e.g. tax cuts), while the Democrats appeal to people's compassion (e.g. Medicaid). Then of course there's Katrina. And my favorite is the environment. There are finally some groups that are trying to bring religious conservatives over to the environmentalist cause where they belong. The Democrats should jump on that bandwagon now. At the least, it has the potential to take some steam out of the Republican grassroots engine.

DUHHH--UHHH?

The absolute refusal of the people who have been in the Democratic Party establishment over the years, to follow the prescription you set forth, is the reason we keep losing elections.

Thanks for giving voice to common sense.

May I also add a comment?  Apropos of #7, reminding voters that it is the Republicans who control Congress.

In addition to the entrenchment of the Shrum-types, we also have a problem getting our ideas down to nuggets which are digestible to the US public, after years of being having dumbed-down shit drummed into them by the networks, and the VRWC.

Harry Truman called the Congress he was running against in 1948 the "Do Nothing Congress".  Three words that said a mouthful.

Our people in 2006 should be talking about the "Cover-up Congress".  I saw that moniker at MyDD earlier this week; I wish I had thought of it.

WE OUGHT TO USE IT, AND USE IT OFTEN.

Why?  The prize.  What is the prize?  Double-header impeachment and removal.  Eyes on the prize.

Good post, some personal followup:

Clearly differentiating ourselves from Republicans:

Yes & No. Yes in that the party should articulate some (general) themes that it stands for, because by practice, a party saying it stands for something is also saying the other party is the exact opposite. No in that just because the GOP takes a certain stance on an issue or is 'for' an issue, doesen't neccessitate that Democrats must take the opposite side of an issue. There's no reason Democrats cant be for generalisms like "Responsibility", "Strong National Defense" and "Values"

2. Talking Values: Yes & No again. You are right that we are talking about "White Chrurch goers." The goal is not trick otherwise conservative christians into voting Democrat or even trying to seriously challenge the GOP for the White Christian vote. We are never going to seriously get many of them without seriously altering the platform of our party in bad ways.

All we have to do is subtlely adjust the party in certain ways so that liberal christians who are looking for an excuse to vote Democratic but don't because they believe the party is godless, is opposed to christians or doesen't care about issue X, can feel more comfortable voting Dem. Much of this can be achieved by simply "talking" values. Joe Lieberman's political career is a great example of what can be achieved through little more than rhetoric. Lieberman, through discussing the merits of faith and rhetorically coming down against violent video games, has garnered him significant support among conservatives (who vote for him) despite the fact that his voting record on "family" issues is the exact opposite of those in the GOP aisle who talk a similiar game.

5. Hitting hard on National Security: I don't think so, in that I don't think the Dems can usurp the GOP lead in this field, but the Dems can easily close the gap and it would cost them virtually nothing but rhetoric. Think Joe Biden.

8. Moderating or moving to the right or center:

Are we speaking whether it's politically advisable or whether "it's the right thing to do."? It seems kind of contradictory to advise against this on Lakoff's thoughts that moving rightward sends the message that you are moving away from what you support and then say that most of the electorate doesen't think idealogically.