Wouldn't part of being partisan be supporting Democrats and bashing Republicans?

If you check out her website, she has a little introductory video in the corner of the screen.  She says "Like many members of the sixth district, I'm concerned about what's happening, and what's not happening in Washington.  Whether the leaders of either party are meeting their responsibilites and truly putting our country first."  

Apparently Tammy Duckworth thinks the ticket to tapping in to people's hunger for change is to indict her own party and suggest it is part of the problem?  How does this help?

saying you're a democrats, in today's climate, might not neccesiraly be an advantage in the heavy republican district and state.I think you have to define yourself as an independent because the country is really upset at both party althought the angers is stronger on the republican side because theyve held congress for a long time and hasnt done a thing.

Therefore, saying you're a liberal democrats may not be too appealing for people because they may see you as no difference then the conservatives that are pushing their hard right ideology.They see liberal as people that could go in and push their hard left ideology.

Of course historically, Midterms seem to always have more independents that party voters, while usually many more will register to parties on presidential election years. Perhaps the money figure would be the 2002 registration.

saying you're a democrats, in today's climate, might not neccesiraly be an advantage in the heavy republican district and state.

Why would anyone believe in, support, or vote for a political party or its candidates when it and they are ashamed of associating themselves with its name, values, and platform?

This should be a blowout year for Democrats that would make the Republicans of 1994 look like pikers by comparison. Instead, we're talking about the possibility of Democrats winning the House and maybe picking up a few Senate seats. That's the DLC's doing.

It just goes to underscore the desperate need for reform of the Democratic Party into one that can be proud enough of itself to brag about it to voters instead of running away from itself.

I am willing to attempt to answer your three requests but I have to say your questions are open-ended and I'm not sure if I agree with the presumptions behind them.

As to how Democrats plan to nationalize this election against Republicans without identifying themselves as Democrats:

First of all, Democrats want to nationalize this election because it is to their advantage. Republicans want to keep it local because it is to their advantage. This isn't a party characteristic, this is a dynamic only reflective of the current times.

Unfortunately, midterm elections are a local issue no matter how you slice it. It's an unfortunate catch-22.

The majority of voters aren't going to vote for a Democrat just because of bush and his incompetence, especially if the Democratic candidate is weaker (in the voter's mind) than the Republican candidate.

But on the positive side, I do believe that the Democrats have strong candidates for this coming November. Those candidates, whatever strategy they decide to take, are the only difference makers. And on top of that, midterms are historically voter apathetic, this year the midterms are far more scrutinized as in the past.

Regardless, candidates publicly identifying themselves as Democrats isn't the most relevant issue when it comes to winning voters on a local level.

As to a refresher course on how people are going to develop a better image of the Democratic Party if our own candidates refuse to identify themselves as Democrats:

The Democrats aren't just fighting for a Congressional majority, the Democrats are fighting for a chance to prove they are the Party of the future. "A chance" being the key phrase.

In order for the Democrats to develop a better party image is if they not only take control of the House and preferably the Senate too but they must also prove that the Democrats know how to handle National Security issues over the course of the next two years.

In otherwords, the Democrats are highly dependent on winning in November in order for them to be able to better the party image.

I'm not sure of whom you are referring to when you say that Democratic candidates that don't identify themselves as Democrats, but I still believe that that is not relevant to local voters. What's relevant is whether the candidate has convincingly campaigned as the best candidate for the job to the local voter.

If the Democrats don't pick up seats in Novembers' midterms (heaven forbid) they will not have the chance to prove if they are strong on National Security and better the party image, regardless of how incompetent the republicans truly are.

And lastly, as to how Democratic congressional challengers plan to win without people being willing to press the "Democratic" button on November 7th:

Democratic congressional challengers are more dependent on their record and their campaign, expecially within this next 2 months, more than they will be dependent on their party affiliation.

One last thing, I do hope the Democratic Party wins big in November. But whatever happens the Republicans will still come up with a way to spin it as to suggest that they are the victors.

`It's demonstrable that we haven't been attacked here again in the last five years,'' said Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate's No. 2 Republican.

``I hope the American people don't believe that's an accident, some quirk of fate,'' said McConnell, who also appeared on CBS. ``It's been because we've been on offense going after the terrorists where they are.''

This isn't quite true, is it? We were attacked again   within the last five years of the Bush Administration. The first time the Twin Towers were attacked was under Clinton, when the attack was stopped and the terrorists jailed.

The second, which McConnell may have forgotten, was planned during Bush's vacation and carried out less than five years ago. Three thousand people died, Mitch. I'm surprised you don't remember. The  fifth anniversary is next week.

Good point. The Dems need to develop their party as a brand name for competence, seriousness of purpose and as a vehicle for meeting tomorrow's challenges.

See the new poll at the front page of cnn.com

Nearly half of the respondents -- 49 percent -- said they considered the GOP the party of strong leadership. But 56 percent said they considered the Democrats the party of change, with 49 percent considering them the more forward-looking party.

and note

More than 60 percent of those surveyed said government policies need either major changes or a complete overhaul, while 30 percent said minor changes were needed. Only 7 percent said no change is necessary.

People want change, are anti-incumbent, and view the Democrats as the party of change.  Identification as Democrats seems like a strength here.

Source:   Voters are anti-incumbent and angry, new poll finds

I ythink the democratic party needs to define what kind of change they will make..Saying the republicans are bad, wont do it because the american people wants you to tell them what are you going to do differently.

For example, the democratic party says they want a change of direction in iraq,when cant define what will really change.

As a liberal, i do not agree with just pulling all troops out and letting sunnies and shiite kill themselves off...To me, this will only make the world community hate us even more because the US will be known as the country that came into iraq, destabilized it, then lift it worse then it was under saddam hussein.

We chose our path early, attack mode. Meanwhile, the political climate was already anti-Bush and anti-GOP. Newflash: that's why we had the generic poll lead and increasing party ID advantage to begin with. It was perfect opportunity to allow that displeasure to simmer while we worked on boosting our favorable numbers. Instead, we piled on, to almost no benefit. Certainly no long term benefit.

If we had positively defined the Democratic belief system and party image, Democrats would identify as Democrats. Which also would have significantly diminished viability for things like the "Defeatocrat" crap.

I'll repeat the famous line I saw atop a diary here, from one of the major players: "We do stand for something. We stand against Bush."

How can anyone here assert it's unfair if the public has that view, that we have no coherent party vision other than attacking Bush, when a righthand man emphasized if not bragged about it himself?

Again, it's like shopping for a car, or any major purchase. You only stop the process in midstream and say "wow, that's it!" if a choice strikes you as outstanding. If it's merely a horrible option you unenthusiastically move to the next dealer. You might not buy anything at all. That's where we are as a party, hoping the voters reject the GOP candidate and reluctantly identify the Democrat instead of staying home. We should have spent the past year providing at least some eagerness to side with our party, with a comfort level that the hostility toward Bush would still be there.

Remember when Doug Forrester ran against Bob Torricelli in New Jersey senate 2002, then when we creatively replaced Torricelli with Lautenberg all of a sudden the basis for Forrester's campaign -- "I'm not Bob Torricelli" was all but shot? That's essentially the path we identified: "Bush and Iraq are a disaster." No doubt it will work to some degree, especially in a second term midterm, but you can't wonder why we're not shouting, "We're Democrats," when all year the theme is, "The other side sucks."

Again, I view the white female vote as the entire key to our fortunes. Chuck Todd pointed that out in 2004 and when I researched it that summer, he was actually understating it. Kerry lost that block 55-44 while Gore had only a 1 point deficit, 49-48. It was the reason for Bush managing a 3 million vote victory and not half million vote defeat.

It's great news those white females have returned to our camp. That's why we have the party ID edge now, security moms drifting back to their previous tendency. But if you look at the interviews with them and other anecdotal evidence, the switch is almost entirely due to dissatisfaction with the GOP. We haven't spoken to the issues that normally decide their vote and there is no guarantee they remain with us beyond 2006. It also follows that they possibly won't vote in significant percentage, or for us,  in 2006 unless we highlight homeland concerns like health care, economy and jobs, and education, in the final two months of this campaign.

DNC should run Ads--about voting straight Democratic ticket.  The Ad should extoll the Dems as the party that gave us Social Security, Medicare, Surpluses, clean environment, public education, strong Middle class which is now under attack by Republicans.

The Ad then should show Democratic Party is about People not special interest(corporations).

And voting straight Dem ticket for a Dem majority for accountability, check Social Security privatization and other extreme right wing agenda, corruption, no bid contracts profiteering from war and Katrina, etc.

This would force candidates to identify themselves as Democrats.

I think you are missing the important news in these polls.  The Rasmussen and CNN polls point to the same thing: dissatisfaction with politicians of both major parties.  If this trend continues, both the Republicans and Democrats will have fewer identifying with them (and soon, registering as such), than the 'other category.

Yes, they are runnign away from the Rethugs quicker, but that's natural, b/c they have command of all three breahcnes of government.  However, Dems are losing ground, not gaining it.  Rethugs are not becoming Dems, they are becoming independents or unaffiliated.

In a year where there are third party or independent options for statewide elections in at least 47 out of 50 states (pending PA and NM, it could be 49), I think you'll see a bump nationwide in third parties totals, although doubtfull this will have any great affect except on a local level, outside perhaps of the TX Governors race.

The CNN poll highlights what other polls have been saying for months, that people are pissed off at politics as usual, and that the Dems are failing to break out of that mold.  Nationally, people don't have any great hope for the Dems, even if they're turned off enough by the Rethugd to turn away from them in high enough numbers for the Dems to squeak out an unworkable majority in the House.

IS this a blip, or a continuation of a longer trend that sees more people not identifying with the two parties?  I think it's the beginning of the decline of the two party system.  All it's going to take is a strong, self-funded independent candidate to run for press in 2008 or 2012 to make this decline a reality.

do mean a Chickenshit apporach to winning elections is turning people off, or is it the chickenshit approach of the Dem congress who abdicated their responsibility to oppose Bush and his cronies in Iraq?  It's all the same thing to me, and to many other people as well.  People are tired of politics as usual, which means that people are tired of the corporate lobbyists running boith sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill...

The democrats, which im a member of, really dont have a plan for iraq, and are hoping that the american public gets so pissed at the way the war is being conducted, that they just throw all republicans out of congress.But if you ask reid, shumer, etc etc, what's the plan, they wont be able to tell you...Troops withdrawal, is not a plan and would never be a plan in my opinion...Leaving iraq when they clearly arent ready to take controll, will destroy this country and we will see a new saddam take over, probably this al-sadr guy and the world will accuse the U.S of creating a guiy worse then saddam.

If the dems think that pulling out is the answer, then they are crazy...Personally, i advocate the biden's plan, which create 3 small states within iraq but make sure that a central goverment keeps the 3 states as a larger iraq..The central goverment will be in charge of oil water supplies etc etc and this goverment will make sure that everything gets plit in 3 parts..We will help them draw the line and buil their infrastructure etc etc..i believe sunnies and shiite cant live together and they have to be separated..the kurds regions are very good right now...

I believe that the democrats should advocate this plais instead of their stupid, lets leave now, plan...Thats very selfish for them to leave and let millions of iraqis that will be murdered as soon as those killers sees no troops to survey the region.

Perhaps Republican candidates are hesitant to identify themselves as Republicans for two reasons.  The first is the obvious: the negative perception of Republicans indicated by the disapproval numbers for Bush & Cheney and the Democratic advantage in generic ballots rather disinclines them to ID as one of those despised Republicans.

But the other is a little subtler, if true.  With the national leadership, spearheaded by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Mehlman demonizing Democrats as the ultimate partisans (tantamount to traitors), the Republicans, by not identifying themselves one way or the other, show themselves NOT to be partisans.  If Democrats are partisans, and partisans are bad, and everyone recognized that "Republicans" are the partisans that oppose the Democrats, by not wrapping themselves in the Republican ID, they say, in effect, "You can trust me, I am not partisan."

If true (and I admit, it could well be ascribing too much subtlty to political campaign strategy), then it also helps explains why Democrats may eb shying away from being upfront about their party affiliation.  They may figure that with Cheney & company blackening the reputation of Democrats as ultra-partisan near-traitors, sticking that ID on themselves may do more harm than good.  They may think that flying under the  public's radar for partisanship will get them through the election better than attacking it head on, because it's so difficult to undo spin once it's out there (cf. Gore and the Internet and other anti-Gore slurs).

There are clearly some problems with this way of thinking. If you can't undo the spin, you can neutralize it, but that requires a loud hard-hitting no-holds barred counter-attack, the kind we didn't see when Kerry was swift-boated.

In addition, you can hide, but you can't hide completely, because the Republicans will be happy to loudly and publicly brand you a Democrat even if you shy away from trumpeting it yourself.

The real problem is, as you say, that you can't nationalize the election without setting up a clear bad-guy (the incompetent, corrupt, unloved Republicans, both local and, especially, national) and an clear good-guy alternative, your local Democratic.  One of the advantages to this is that the nationalization can be one-sided: your beloved local Democrat is, in effect, competing against those disliked National Republicans away in alien Washington D.C.

So there may be a happy medium, when local Dems don't identify themselves so much with the national party (and risk being sullied by Cheney & Company's lies) as with other local Democrats, preferably the most trusted of them in the area.

There's a distinct difference between "bashing" a candidate (you Ms. Candidate, are an idiot) and making a suggestion as to what would be a good political strategy to adopt.  Part of that is about tone, but a lot is about the intent, and I see no other purpose here except to urge Democrats to adopt a particular strategy.