I can deal with not highlighting being a Democrat as long as you highlight being VERY oppositional to Republicans- I think that's probably good enough.  However, it would really be nice if we could find more candidates willing to say that the definition of a Democrat, at least this year, is opposition to completely crazy Republican leadership.  If that's why they're running (and, to quote Rob Gordon, it fucking should be shouldn't it?) then they should say so.

If you want to say you're gonna improve schools, say that you're going to save schools from Republican neglect and shitty Republican education policy.  If you want to fix health care, say you want to be a voice that stops Republicans from letting poor Americans literally rot from unaffordable medical care.  It's damned easy. I should go into advertising. We should all just go into advertising.

I think it's about showing voters that you have the confidence of your beliefs.  By running away from a party label, you lose maybe the most appealing characteristic of any politician.  

This is the first seriously dismaying trend (if indeed it is a trend) I've seen this cycle.  

The next "growth spurt" for the party's national message will probably have to come from the next Presidential race.  They're just too frightened in Congress to deliver it now.

Really, we should probably be as sympathetic about the beltway disconnect as we are pissed.  It's so easy to lose touch.  Let's figure out how to pressure candidates to not be afraid, rather than lacerating them.

You are so right. Being afraid of who you are denotes weakness of character. Who the hell do these consultants think they're fooling anyway? Why should any independent trust someone who obviously is being devious towards them. This kind of thing is the very trait the Indys hate about politicians. If a person says they are an independent that indicates they are OPEN to ALL politician's message that means BOTH repigs and DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agree.  Eliot Spitzer doesn't mention he is a Democrat either and he is running in NY.  I wonder if Hillary will??  It is not as though she can run from the party label considering her husband was the last Dem President.

Is this just plain timidity or is there some polling data saying party affiliation in ads is a bad thing?  I ask because it seems to be a trend everywhere even where being a Dem is not cryptonite.

Because studies have repeatedly shown that people find it easier to express an emotion when they know it's shared by others.  They hear the laughing and feel it's okay for them to laugh, too.  [b]They don't have to be embarrrassed about it.[/b]

I don't think politics is any different.  If people see that being a democrat is nothing to be embarrassed about, then they'll be a lot more likely to be democrats, or at least to vote for them.  "Proud to be a democrat" [b]is[/b] an appeal to swing voters.  The republicans learned this.  Do your critics remember 2004, where Kerry lost largely due to the 'irresolute and wishy-washy' criticism?  Voters will vote for someone who stands up for what they believe, [b]even if they don't agree with that belief[/b].    I've talked to dozens of fairly liberal democrats, here in NC, who voted for Jesse Helms because "We know where he stands."
Your critics are clueless.

I think maybe part of the issue is that these candidates are not running these ads for us, they know how we are going to vote. Many bloggers (and i'm sure Matt has at one point or another)  bitch about 'the establishment' and 'consultants' over managing candidates races. Matt's pretty much doing the same thing here. How can you possibly know what the best message is for a candidate in some back water district down in Flordia or Massachuttes, or Vermont? I sure as hell don't.

Don't forget the biggest party in this country is the one that doesn't vote. So obviously they don't care about labels, either democract or republican. They care about ideas and leadership. That's what the Ads need to show, partisan lables really don't matter when going after this group.

Also at this point in the race going on air w/out using partisan labels allows the candidate to define themself to voters w/out having to fight through any preceived notion of the party.

Lately, you have been pretty good at hitting the nail on the head. The one story I keep repeating is about my conservative evangelical Democrat friend who when she was asked to support and endorse a more liberal candidate her issue with him wasn't "he's more liberal" it was that he refused to give her straight answers for fear of offending her. He turned what was a simple question of policy into her coming away from the situation questioning his character. I just don't know why people don't see how damaging such approaches are.

I think a lot of policians think we are stupid.

It's like they throw out all the common sense that they have for how human behavior really works (which isn't issues) in favor of  saying "well, this is politics, and let me do something that is counter to pscyhology." The norm being if you don't define yourself, then others might. If you are afraid of what you believe, then others will think you are weak.

The Republicans, as pointed out on Olberman last night, are better at this game than Democrats because they understand they are shaping character image. I really one day want to write a diary in which I just repeat the word character until we start to get that this is where we lose people, especially in the middle because they people aren't partisan. They vote based on whether they like you, now whether they agree with everything you say. Why can't people see that?

In all seriousness, what kind of expertise do we have around here with nuts-and-bolts admaking as opposed to just messaging? What if we pulled together a collective of 10-12 people and offered in-kind contributions to candidates either making their ads entirely or helping script them?  Then hold them up as examples of how to do it?  I'm sure there are candidates who wouldn't mind a free ad, and even if it's candidates who have NO shot whatsoever, we have a couple great ads to point at and say "see? do it like that".  Even better if we can get some polling before and after that (hopefully) would prove the point.

Small Town Texas, Present Day

[Candidate for office walks into local bar.]

Candidate: My name is Sean-Paul.  I'm a proud lifelong Communist and Atheist.  You may not agree with me, but I have the balls to stand up for what I believe.  That's why you should vote for me this November.

Bar dwellers: Wow, Sean-Paul!  You've got some stones comin' in here like that and standing up for yerself!  I may not agree with you, but you damn sure have my vote this November!

[Scene]

People don't like "tools"?

Like, maybe, tools of political parties?

Most voters, and especially swing voters, don't want partisan politicians. They want representatives who will provide independent representation of their interests. Not stating your party affiliation isn't branding yourself as a tool, or hiding something. Its saying that you are a politician who puts the voters, not his party first.

That may not appeal to this crowd, but that's because its not designed to.

It's a good point, but I think it would carry more weight if you also had data showing that Republicans always mentioned party affiliation in the same kinds of ads being discussed here.

If both the Repups and Dems are doing the same thing--withholding party ID in ads--then the problem is different than Dems being afraid.  If that were the case case, the problem you would be picking up on would become something like "elected officials worried that the public is tired of politics"--a slightly different issue.  

Maybe we need to make up some "I'm Blue And I'm Proud!" bumper stickers...

voters will think you are ashamed of who you are


Just curious...is this speculation about what voters think or a result from the survey you guys did?  I read that line and I though,  OK, why wouldn't voters also think, "Finally!  A politician who isn't obsessed with his party and can just talk about the issues."

I honestly don't know what voters think about a candidate specifically when they see an ad that doesn't mention party affiliation.  It's a very specific insight.

Notice anything about the Andrew Hurst website? as in Democrat for congress right under his name?

He promised me that if he could raise money for TV commercials he would mention the Terri Schiavo subpoena.

From the latest Diageo/Hotline poll. Sorry if the columns don't line up

13. And, in your opinion, do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress or if the Democrats controlled Congress?

                                TOTAL REP IND DEM
Republicans                      30%   71% 11% 5%
Democrats                        37%   6%  25% 76%
Neither (DO NOT READ)            20%   14% 46% 10%
Don't Know/Refused (DO NOT READ) 13%   9%  18% 9%

In other words, a plurality of independents say that they'd prefer neither of the major parties were running Congress even when that is not given as an option in the poll.

Highlighting your partisinship is just not a good way to win these votes.

"Not everyone is a Democrat like you' is the refrain"
.

Fact is not everyone is a Republican either and boatloads of people are sick and tired of those kleptocratic GOP bastards.

Not only should we be taking this golden opportunity to promote and enhance the Democratic "brand" (as much as I hate that term), but we need to reinforce it as the alternative to the out-of-favor GOP brand now carrying all of its negative baggage.

Put the heavy burden onus on the GOP to explain why being a Republican candidate somehow makes them a better choice for voters.  We then get a double benefit.  Voters will have a negatively reinforced reason to identify with or gravitate toward a Democratically identified candidate since they will hear both (1) the Democratic message of change and (2) be driven away from the tarnished GOP brand by the revulsion of the very same GOP corruption and incompetence that is directly responsible for all the intractably serious problems causing the GOP's declining poll numbers.

People are telling Democrats that they are pissed at the GOP.  Any Democrat not exploiting the GOP "brand" revolt does so at their own peril and to their own detriment.

sláinte,
cl

CL

Word.

I agree and disagree.

I think what Democrats specifically but really all politicians need to do is start standing up for what is right and not what is a party line. And even more importantly not what they think will get them reelected.

Once people know Democrats are steadfast in their beliefs, then they will start believing in Democrats.

Letting the Republicans frame the issues doesn't help either.

Dems need to start acting and not reacting.

http://dontbealemming.com/2006/08/19/dem ocrats-need-to-be-true-to-themselves-and -their-priorities.aspx

Posted by the Lemming Herder from Don't Be A Lemming!