the one thing every Democrat has to learn from Michael Moore is that if you have ammo left in the clip, you don't let off the trigger. Unless something is constitutionally certain, it's on the ballot in your district, state, or country. Even Kerry coming out hard for something like ANWR mighta helped.
I'm currently starting at USC's School of PUblic Policy and Development. I have been at law school, but the Catholic university where I was a student...they kick out people based not on whether they pass or fail, but by section rank. So I managed to be the goat. I hope to avenge myself one day, but I had a poor LSAT thhat most midmajors averaged into my better LSAT...hence I'm not at Notre Dame for law school either.
Kerry's overall...overall performance? He apparently had some concept of what to do, but as everyone at least on MyDD groans vociferously didn't do it.
I told someone else (can't remember who) it's largely voodoo thinking that Bush or the Republicans have dramatic, outrageous victories. Since the start of the 20th century the popular vote is usually at most 55%-45%...but because of the electoral college suddenly it's tight again. In many ways, I'm just stunned that Nixon's Southern strategy works so well, even 35 years later.
Kerry lost overall high-school educated women over 18. I think Belsan occuring so close to the Republican national convention was crucial. Bush ought to mail Putin a thank you note for that ridiculous siege attempt. But hey, supposed Bush did best among old people. So hence he took the money from investment banks that wanted to privatize Social Security but stayed mum during the campaign. Just imagine if McAuliffe had been talking about that between September and November. "King George better stop sucking at the tit of Wall Street with your money in his sights".
In any case, we'll see how bad this SSI proposal implodes...either before it ever gets started...or as the shit progressively hits the fan. We turn out the old people in '06 and '08 and goodbye GOP majority!
I only tease you because I am a grad student at a certain school that plays Notre Dame yearly. I am happy to hear you enjoy it. As for the debate, what does it tell you that Kerry can cold-cock Bush and still lose?
You got some proof? Forget From and Reed...do the words Americans for Jobs and Healthcare mean anything to you? Dean was clubbed over the head by that 527 run by Kerry and Edwards people in violation of the BCRA. You obvouisly didn't read this thread carefully (or you are McAulliffe's nephew). I said that I don't dislike McAuliffe as a person either, but that he was woefully inconsistent since the first day on the job in regards to tone and tenor. Dean or no Dean, McAuliffe's "strategy" cost us 2002. And quite frankly that year has much bigger repercussions than '04 or '00.
I ask you...please keep MyDD civil and respectable. Everyone I have met here is more than accomdodating.
McAuliffe didn't like the fact that Joe Trippi had out-fundraised him. It was like, here is what the DNC did, and here is what DFA did. I knew once Dean had been torpedoed that the Dems would lose in November. Not because I wasn't hoping for the opposite (and I still voted for Kerry) but because Dean's candidicy required Bush having a very bad year. Apparently most people around big Dem donors figured Bush would get his act together last year in which case Kerry was an OK pick.
What terrifies me is that the big donors and Party hacks actually believed Bush's spin. I expected the Red State Retard to follow the GOP aimlessly, but when you get T-Mac and John Kerry led around by the snout...
Plus, I dunno if this is Luke or Chris but I too am young enough to where I don't take these "but in 2050" comments lightly. I don't want to be working myself to death because Charles Schwab and Peter Lynch pissed away my Social Security contribution. I also sincerely hope you like Notre Dame, they rejected me for law school. :P
I think there are several reasons that McAuliffe gets a bad reputation, but even I am not sure what is deserved and what is not.
Essentially, McAuliffe took over right after Bush was elected. Every person who posts on this board I am sure was PISSED. It was then that "T-Mac" gave his inagural speech saying "if not for the Supreme Court, Al Gore would be in the White House, George Bush back in Texas State House, and Ashcroft at home reading Southern Partisan magazine". Yet after 9-11, he certainly didn't push that type of rhetoric in the 2002 midterm elections. That decision was awful costly in the grand scheme of things.
Then in November of 2003, McAuliffe was invited to speak at a New Hampshire elementary school. McAuliffe was supposed to give a guest lecutre on the three branches of gov't. Instead, Terry went beserk, telling the students if Bush was elected there would be a draft, and THEY would have to serve. He continued his rhetoric for so long that the administrators at the schools were speechless. Kids went home, I am told, crying. Yet Terry did all he could to suffocate Dean, and then after there was a "safe candidate" again didn't take the fight to the Republicans.
So which is it? Is McAuliffe himself a victim of having to be everything to everyone, or did he conscientiously call off the dogs? You got me as to what the truth is, but the inconsistency is what irritates the rank and file Dems. It's okay to soft-pedal, it's okay to rip Bush a new asshole. But, can we please get a feel for the strategy?
I say that, because yeah, no doubt McAuliffe has done a great job raising big money. He also is extremely brave in taking on GOPundits when no elected person will. He also isn't as full of himself as he could be. No...that's the mystery...who is the REAL T-Mac? If we knew that, no one would think Dean or others would be such an improvement.
Absent from your analysis is what you think should have been done about Dean. The Democrat President in the 20th century has often been "the outsider". After all, Wilson and FDR were elected, but Truman and Johson were not. It was Kennedy who set the post-FDR rubric; and Carter and Clinton successfully played the part. But issue framing as you would like to have it is often unpredictable.
Case in point: in 2002 all the Senate Dems wanting to be President refused to be antiwar. Dean said, "I'll bet on the come". Come 2004, it seems obviously that Dean or no Dean, being solidly antiwar would have not a deal-breaker among independents and all but the most cyncial and hardened conservatives. But the Democrats trying to game it out picked Kerry.
Kerry then retaliates by saying "sitting presents are never defeated in war time". This is not true; Truman and Johnson both lost, but it was because they could not secure the Democratic nomination. They knew it was over already. The Dems need only to decide where to stand and hold their ground. At first it might appear we lose ground, but public opinion is tidal...it comes in and it goes out.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that there was a deadly tsunami between Bush's reelection and inaguration...perhaps it shows the high-water mark has been reached and now the water is sliding back.
I was going to buy the "Republican Noise Machine" until I checked it out at the bookstore and noticed it was reiterating many of Brock's point in "Blinded by the Right". The scary thing is, while many have criticized Brock for "Blinded" being false (I even remember Joe DiGenova's head about to explode when he and Victoria Toesing cornered Brock on Hardball)...every statement that seemed a little incredulous, a little uncertain has been reaffirmed again and again.
The only book that matches Brock's two would be "Shrub" by Molly Ivins.
Um...Latino candidates in California flounder because there is deep mistrust because black and Latino, not because "true blue liberals" are afraid of either. In fact...
Villagaroisa is actually most popular among Westsiders, with Hahn representing the runoff choice of the Valley and the first choice of San Pedro and blacks. Hertzberg is coming to hit Hahn from the north, and Parks is coming from the south. FYI...most Latinos don't live in LA proper. They live in suburbs to the east and south. Villagariosa can't win South LA, but he can lay off Hertzberg enough so that the run off is Villagaroisa versus the Hertz. Because the Hertz wants to break up LAUSD (and end busing of promising black kids out of the ghetto), Tony would be the clothspin vote winner. Still it's gunna be wild.
In the 1990s, many "exurbs" came into being because there was a period of mergers and acquisitions followed by market deregulation. Many companies that heretofore had workers split up evenly across the US started to consolidate them. These companies range from Bank of America to Southwestern Bell (now SBC). These companies proceeded to note that wages were much higher (in the early 90s) in the states that we now think of as Blue and they were way lower in the states that are now Red. So probably at least a million workers found themselves moving to Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina, Texas, and Florida to follow these jobs. And they are still moving to Denver, Charlotte, Phoenix, etc. to take the jobs that growing urban areas need that don't necessarily require a college education. But that isn't the reason that these people vote for Bush, rather it is the reason why exurbs are filled who they are.
What I was saying is that many people who are in the process of settling down who are more educated will also find themselves in the exurbs because of cheap housing and balance them out.
The reason that non-college education people tend to vote for Bush is that colleges are filled with people from other countries and where they can actually read books which school boards are afraid to have. People in the "Red States" aren't willfully ignorant...they just do not have exposure to the entire picture due to a culture of pride and naivete.
I happen to live in California. Even worse, I live in Los Angeles County. People think our state is "liberal". Boy are they wrong. Los Angeles County used to be full of Republicans, and even worse Orange County used to be 80% Republican. They used to have a Congressmen in northern Orange County called Bob Dornan. When "B-1 Bob" first lost his district he claimed the election was rigged. Now he couldn't win a race in any congressional district in northern Orange County. They are fast becoming all Democrats. South county is solidly Republican, but they are anti-growth...so you can see what that engenders.
But the bottom line is this: "exurbs" was just a quirk...the Republican figured out that it was fertile ground to go...went there and everyone was like "ooh ahh". Same deal with "soccer moms". Carville would have you think that "soccer moms" require an application process and membership dues because they are so unique. Exurbs might play a factor in '08 but trust me, Rove is already thinking of something else.
FYI: Hillary is betting on immigration as the new black...I am not convinced.
...great image about Luntz laying his "Species"-esque eggs in female brains.
This is all a myth, but it's based around a kernel of truth. What the Republicans call "exurbs" are usually just the last suburb in a larger conurbation. It's the the Loundon County if you live in Virginia or Henderson if you live near Las Vegas. Because they are the farthest out, you get a mix of people that live there. Some are people who just like their suburbs quiet and rural and in some cases are retired. They don't have a commute and don't give a rip.
The other common exurb population is...newly married couples looking for cheap housing. The reason Bush won these "exurbs" convincingly is that young married women who are not college education have become "security moms". But women with a college education or better overwhelmingly went Kerry. Why? Because most women who have a college degree marry LATER and they make MORE MONEY. They have kids later too. So while exurbs are packed with people who are looking for jobs and cheap housing for people who got married before 25...the hordes of late marriers are about to "hatch". The ensuing correction will debunk this exurban myth...but since the GOP is going to invent new rhetoric for '08 anyway...no one will notice.
Iraq is not the central issue in the campaign, but it destabilizes the hawk-dove access and makes it hard to oppose Labour with alienating one side or the other. Iraq is constantly reinjected because Blair has several national security issues he likes to push and often his hecklers push back (at least when I am watching the House of Commons) about Iraq demonstrating that Blair's priorities are often backwards. If Blair didn't have to use the national security card, Iraq would be of lesser important than say, affordable housing.
The DNC Chair can only do so much. I think everyone has a valid point, and no matter who is Chair the Democratic Party there are some problems that have to be addressed.
Coordinate the primary season. The media wants a coronation and the point is, the longer the season went, the more money and time guys like Rove and Steve Moore had to spend attacking everyone and no one. The Party has to stop blowing its wad in January and instead make sure that the candidates make their way to more than just battleground states. Also, the reason this is preferable is that in smaller venues and fora, people get to know what these guys and gals stand for. It also means it's that much longer before the other side start using the impersonal medium of TV to attack you. This compressed primary season is the reason we got Kerry as a candidate and it's the reason we lost the election. With the exception of Kucinich or Sharpton any Dem candidate would have met or exceeded Kerry's final tally.
Recongize the medium you are using limits how the message is made. Kerry was lampooned for being unable to give a short answer to anything. Obviously, Bush looked terrible speaking "naturally" and only looked good when he was scripted. The difference? Bush used lots of media where this inarticularity didn't matter...whereas Kerry was much more tepid. He should have been much more proactive dealing with the print press and other media that are limited to soundbites and 30 seconds. But when you only have 30 seconds...make it count. Duh.
Stop the absurd gamesmanship. I don't know who is behind this...be it a deep pocket or a really deep pocket...but Dems look bad when we write things off. Not in the form of a particular region of the country or an issue. We look bad when we have a weapon in the arsenal and we don't use it. We don't avoid talking about an issue because it isn't a big deal. And we don't avoid states because they aren't in the battleground. That is why Republican airbags were so apoplectic about Michael Moore. His movies aren't about letting up after he's already made a convincing argument. If he has more ammo in the clip, he doesn't let off the trigger. It's not that the Party Chair needs to be the Ripper-in-Chief however. Instead, he or she merely need to remind people what issues have been brushed aside. Just imagine how different the election would have been if the defeat Democratic Senate candidates had made sure to point out that Bush's biggest donors were in favor of Social Security privatization. Can you imagine the impact of Terry McAuliffe reminding people on TV throughout September and October that Bush's biggest donors favored privatization?
There is no reason to fight the last war in '06 and '08 however. Bush won largely because the Beslan tragedy occured during the RNC...and that cost him dearly with non-college educated women. Lightning could strike again, but I would argue from this point on the elections are the Democrats' to lose. Bush has used up his war bounce, the GOP has run wild redistricting, and there are few if any old school Souther Dems to purge left. Now is the time to plan for the future.
It's likely to be sort of close to how Bush won in 2004. The Liberal Dems still have a bit of way to becoming a real threat to Labour. Blair himself could lose the title of Prime Minister if it's a very close election. However, just as Bush used the Iraq war to divide his opposition...so has Blair...and that means that the better issues for conservatives like the Euro are pushed off the main page. Figure Labour in a 55% victory nationwide. Lib Dems might get about 7% and the Tories the rest.
I was including Texas as part of the South, because I believe that is how most analyses do it. Also, I meant more job growth than total economic growth...but that's just to give you a better idea what I meant.
I don't deny that the Virginia governor's race is bound to be hyped this year because of Warner and the other ramifications. But remember how awful 2002 was despite McGreevey and Warner both winning the statehouse in '01.
You have to love the Willie Horton tactics Kilgore is trying to use, and I am not sure it will work. But in any case, I think the Dems can really cause trouble in '06 simply by trying to purge Republicans from areas of the country where Bush and guys like DeLay are an anethma.