in his most recent statement at democracyforamerica.com, he continues to call himself a fiscal conservative. We're never going to take this issue from the republicans until we change the rhetoric. responsible.. fiscally responsible. he says we cant be repub-lites, but then he calls himself a good conservative. you can tell them pretty easily at:
These are from tradesports, which is a betting excahnge. The numbers represent a percentage chance of being the nominee. The first number is the bid, the second is the ask. The market value is somewhere between them. Kerry and DEan look like outside shots in this lineup.
did you notice how kerry really closed the gap in some states (that he still ended up losing) as the night wore one? i was trading the election live online, so i was watching county by county returns come in a lot of states very closely. I had some spread sheets doing the same vote projections off of the florida election reutrns website. My conclusion was that city precincts with possible more votes to count generally reported results slower than sparsely populated areas with fewer votes to tally, less stuff to close down at the end of the day etc. Libertarianism is more popular among people who live in sparsely populated areas. This phenemon described is no surprise to me. It helped Kerry over the course of the night. we were down in Minnesota with 15-20% reporting. We were also down much bigger in florida. Before Cuyhoga county turned in results in Ohio, Bush was ahead by alot more to with like 50% precincts reporting.
In colorado Bush won the $50,000 and under vote 50-49, while he lost this vote 44-55 nationally. Other than that most of the others questions lined pretty well. Maybe those groups you mentioned are very effective with the upper-middle class, but havent gotten their message to lower class people yet.
We need to drive our differences with Bush home in this respect. Let's attempt to lower taxes on middle america, while raising them on the rich (back to Clinton era levels). It will be a wedge issue in the Republican party. Those without college degrees want tax cuts, but they dont want the rich to get them. Kerry only appealed to these folks by trying to roll back Bushes tax cut on the rich, without giving them any reason it would help them. Let's try to help them out, and roll back Bushes tax cuts. If we keep our message simple (no target tax cuts that are imposible to explain in a sound bite), the working poor that voted for Bush will get the picture. Bush's coalition is only united on the social issues. Economic concerns are the way to islolate the "Reagan democrats" and peel them off from the conservative wingnuts.
Isnt this the wrong phrasing? For the "values voters" doesnt works talk imply a distinctly Catholic idea of the right path. If we start talking about good works, evangelicals see good works as a Catholic substitution for faith in Jesus. Evangelicals are fond of saying that Catholics are trying to get to heaven with good works alone.
Progress is possible in a two party system. American history is a story of progressive successes. It gives the people who care the most, the activist community, more voice than they would otherwise have. Median voter theory applies pretty well to PR too. You will still get a majority coalition ruling from the center.
I think corporate media is being broken down by the blogosphere. Blogs must now move from a tool of party activists to a news source for middle America. I think blogs will look a lot like partisan European papers someday.
I agree that tax reform is a good thing, probably a non-partisan issue. however:
Attracting fiscal conservatives is the wrong group to include. We will never be able to simultaneously advocate policies al a Ross Perot and still keep the current coalition on board. What do you cut? Progressive discretionary social programs? I dont think you can cut the military budget in the current political environment without getting your head chopped off. You can't cut medicare or social security either (why would you?) Rolling back Bush's tax cut for the wealthy is the only way.
Trying to paint ourselves as fiscal conservatives is a mistake now. Bush is running up the deficit, but that doesn't mean we should steal the GOP's position. We should just use it so they cant criticize our spending.
did you read my post? are you a liberal? are you a supply-side economist? who's talking about a police state? is the minimum wage and a graduated tax system socialist? i see you voted for Bush. why are you on this blog? did i mention the presidency in '08? do you have low reading comprehesion? is "job creators" Karl Rove's new buzzword for business owners?
does anyone have any real discussion? i would love to hear criticism or consensus (from a democratic perspective).
what are you fighting for? You can't make a different promise to every precinct. Candidates should carefully be chosen, precinct-by-precinct, but the message ought not be distorted. Politics is a competitive game, where the winner gets power. Power is not the ends. Power is the means, and progressive change is our end.
As a defensive strategy for under duress minority, I think this strategy will be effective. The problems begin once it is effective. While the GOP will fracture once the election glee rubs off, it will be nothing compared to a fracturing following this strategy. What do you do with this strategy once you reach power? What policies do you enact? Everyone has their own vision for v-day - religious right. All of the members of the coalition have distinct goals for power. No one has the same top priority. How do you prevent internal bickering that allows the opposition to create a Contract with America that primarily pledges to cut through the opponents deer-in-the-headlights paralysis? You can't. You must have priorities before you get there. The democratic party needs a worldview, if any near-term successes can be parlayed into decades of control.
Make no mistake, the time for strategies like Chris' this are now in my opinion. We do need to couple them with a set of priorities that can not be negotiable upon victory.
The possiblity of an electoral shift is being bandied about in political science community. Failure to act strong now could bring decades of GOP domination.
We do need to couple them with a set of priorities that can not be negotiable upon victory.