When was the last time Rothenberg was right about anything?  How did he call the House and Senate races last year?  Was he even in the ballpark?

Back in 2004 and here in Arizona, John McCain was running for re-election.  The Democratic Party standard bearer was running on a platform of "anyone and anything but Bush" and of course he lost and big time.  He also lost my vote.  And I am Democrat.  

Thusly, I cast my vote for McCain for two reasons.  An "anyone but Bush" speaks only to empty rhetoric.  And secondly, I always knew that McCain would self-destruct on the premise that he never had the gumption to continue beyond South Carolina when the graduates of Lee Atwater's School of Tough Love got to him in 2000.

Now, I am not into any form for self-vindication, but as long as the standard bearers of the Democratic Party exercise some self-retraint on the level and volume of rhetoric, and demonstrate the actualizaton for some serious aggressiveness on the nexus for ideology/principles, Democrats will always do well at the ballot box.  So, it's kind of nice to see Chris Bowers, make the distinction necessary to understand the difference between the 'swing voter' from 'swing activist'.

Jaango

The concept of a "swing activist" is great -- progressive activists exist in large numbers and they are an important determinant of elections.

Republicans have had a winning combination the past 30 years by marrying the money of rich people and corporate interests with the grassroots activists of the religious Right.

Democrats have traditionally had a more difficult time raising money because they were not as willing to kowtow to the elite. By ignoring progressive activists, Democrats will also -- once again -- lose swing activists who can easily shift their focus to particular issues or become apathetic and disengaged from electoral activity. Without either a money or activist advantage, Democrats will lose.

Rothenberg's analysis is perfect for leading Democrats to lose elections.

Just an additional comment.

After having read the Mudcat Saunders thread, I find that Mudcat should get off his duff and run for public office, and thusly, he would see how well he fares in competitive politics and obviously, where 'street cred' is at a premium.  And since he is consulting for the Edwards campaign, I don't see any 'value-added' to the Edwards effort.

Perhaps, I am a tad too cynical from here in Republican-landia (Arizona).  Take, for example, when you reside among the Right, a "survial instinct" kicks in with respect to politics.  History is a savvy Truth-Teller.  Back in 1900, there were only 250,000 Native Americans in America and today, the number now surpasses several million.

Of course, white America is not enamored with a military draft and a universal health program rolled into the VA's medical systemic, but it will happen as more 'racial and ethnics' continue to aspire to the overarching American Dream, and all the political opposition that emanates from the Consultant Class will not deter this progress.

And yet, we can learn from the Right.  Ron Paul has it correct when he speaks about the candidates on the Right, "They're worried about the immediate next election, which is the Republican primary, and anything they can pander, they'll do it, and they'll forget about what they believe in, they'll forget about the Constitution, they'll forget about building coalitions."

Need more be said about the Ten Morticians that are currently attempting to bury the cadaver of the Republican Party while it's still alive?

Jaango

the anti-Gore media narratives that went virtually unchallenged

There were no real mechanisms to disseminate challenges like we have now with emergence of mediamatters.org, the netroots etc.

The web itself isn't enough, because it takes flow of information. There were a few people fighting their guts out like the daily howler, Sam/Robert Perry of Consortium News, Eric Boehlert etc, but they were individuals compared to what can be called a movement of people now. That stands to make a huge difference in fighting back.

The boots on the ground in 2000 may have been significantly less than today, but comparatively Democrats were dominating the GOP in that era. I got started in a 16-man election pool in '96 and won it the first two cycles, partially due to reading online reports of Democratic strength on the ground, and a confidence it would show up at the ballot box if not the polls.

Here's a related link I saved from a few years ago:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/diges t/3010066.html

"By 1996--and certainly by 1998 and 2000--pundits and practitioners not only knew about these programs but also credited them with the success of Democratic candidates on election day compared to pre-election polls. In a 2003 article in the Washington Times, Steven Dinan noted: "The toughest pill for Republicans to swallow from the 1998 and 2000 elections was why final opinion polls promised victory in so many key races that Republicans ended up losing."

The main finding supporting the claim that Democratic outreach efforts have been effective is that Democratic coalition groups constituted a higher portion of the election day electorate than they constituted in the general population. For example, polling data showed labor's share of the vote increasing from 1996 to 2000, as did the number of black voters.

Republicans also believed that the Democrats had achieved an edge by the late 1990s. "What we saw across the country was that we were under-performing and Democrats were overperforming in the final 72 hours," said Blaise Hazelwood, political director at the RNC. "It seemed that they had a really good ground game. I think we did, too, but theirs was stronger than ours."

Evidence that the Democrats amassed a mobilization advantage between 1996 and 2000 is largely uncontroverted. In fact, scholarly research lends credence to the observational accounts of the mainstream news media and the conventional wisdom of partisan practitioners. If the Democrats did invest more heavily in getting out the vote and personal contacting, political science research over the past decade or so suggests this was a sound decision. In particular, a number of recent studies attest to the effectiveness of phone calls, direct mail, and door-to-door contacts--the clear implication being that personalized contacts have an appreciable influence on the likelihood that an individual will vote."

Below that pasted section is a long segment titled, "The Republican Response," basically a point-by-point summary of the GOP's effort to play catchup and reverse the trend.