The idea that progressives can find and activate a hidden majority still persists. In the long run it must be aimed for...but in the short run we must aim more towards the middle than much of the partisan left blogosphere seems willing to admit, IMO.
The Republicans have a more reliable base. Simple as that. The poster above who doesn't believe in microtargeting is flat wrong.
I think we'll see the complaint cycle again in '08 Presidential, with many progressives on the net complaining about somebody like ___ (fill in the blank) being "forced upon us." Whether that becomes the majority blogosphere opinion remains to be seen. Hopefully not.
Great post, but I just have to laugh at the thought of another Northeastern intellectual as a Presidential candidate.
I mean, it's early to talk this way, about '08, but come on. Dodd is much less than a "longshot." Part of the "case" you have to make must include geographics and electability (which was not invented in 2004 - it goes back in time forever). How would his case overcome the unavoidable disadvantage of his geographics?
Re Foot in mouth, I think Dodd is talking about the AP story.
Chris, I don't think Dem Corps was claiming that they were issuing talking points. Really they were giving the concepts upon which candidates could base talking points. (of course, this assumes campaigns have talented Comm Dirs who can do this well)
This just from a read of your post; I haven't read the memo - pardon me if it contradicts my point.
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.
Matt, you've hit upon all the right points of criticism, I think.
This ad is well produced, and she's got a great bio, which they effectively and repetitively highlight, but it says nothing about her campaign or her beliefs. It's all positioning. It's cliched liberal laundry list positioning.
The answer to "Why are you running?" should suffuse all messaging.
Let's see what her next ad, and see if there's more to her/her braintrust's strategic capabilities.
I knew Angelides' campaign was dead when I saw his first ads, and when he later didn't improve them much.
When you see one timid decision made after another, that's a bad omen.
And your comment about Dukakis plus 4 billion and Judiasm equalling Bloomberg is just dumb and crude.
Not that I disagree with you much on political substance, but your style is bad for you, this blog, and blogs in general.
You are hell bent on branding yourself as a hothead generalizer who speculates on events and motivations beyond your vision. Someday you'll regret a lot of this crap, regardless of whatever else you do that is good.
I had a conversation with a senior Sierra person in SF post Chafee, and his contention was that "our endorsements have to mean something" - they have to have a legitimate mechanism for rewarding those who vote well. This is a legitimate point.
But I think single issue organizations can coexist with a new brand of partisan multi-issue coalition/organization.
I certainly agree that rigorous but measured partisanship, emodied by candidates like Ned Lamont, is the necessary short term direction. Someday bipartisanship of days of yore may return; but that day is nowhere in sight.