Democrats Urged to Abandon Election Myths

we will win.

we won in 2002 and 2004.

Don't forget that we won in 2000, too!!! :spank:

(okay, maybe the issue in 2000 was more about ballots than machines; and maybe I just wanted an excuse to use that cute spanky icon...but still...) :hi:

Why don't they just give it up. They messed up on Iraq. Stop blaming everyone else for their mistake.

the DLC being a legitimate part of the Democratic coalition.

Myth number two: The United States has free, honest, and open elections.

They do NOT represent the DP - they are IN BED with the Neo-Cons and are part of the CULTURE OF CORRUPTION in our government.

It's high time that they (DLC) get a clear resounding message from the grassroots that either THEY get with the program or get honest for a change - declare their loyalty to their own selves (corporate interests they are invested with) and form a different party.

I've got a few suggestions on what to name their undemocratic, anti-citizen, elite, warmongering fascists (corporate first) party but I'll leave that to the other creative minds in this community to recommend. ;)

My take is that since 2000 we are de facto in a constitutional crisis. Denying it for short-term political strategies ala Rodham will not change anything. The election system (and a "system" it is obviously!) is just the obvious surface element.

"The Quiet American." They are agents of the US government!

I won't be voting for these spineless Bush-lite creeps; fuck them and their meaningless politics of appeasement.

The path is as clear as day: withdraw the troops from Iraq and back economic populism.

Just remember this, Hillary et al: we have other choices. And your Anybody But Bush baloney won't work again.

attacked us on 911.

Right?

Yes, we'll listen to the government. After all, they're honorable, truthful and people of great character and compassion and most certainly the ones I'd choose to be my moral compass.

Now, remind me, which party is it that opposes paper trail ballot voting?

And which party was it that sued to stop the recount?

Oh look, there's something bright and shiny, sparkling, in the distance near that walmart store... I'm going to run and play with it, and go shopping for toilet paper. Never mind! Oh, right, I need duct tape.

(runs off into the setting sun....)

:hi:

happen?

The 2nd Stolen, no 3rd stolen "election" and I WILL NEVER GET OVER IT OR MOVE ON!

go figure.

It just rolls off the fingers so nicely.

OK, so I guess I imagined that Blackwell said he was going to give W Ohio in 2004. I guess I imagined that a town with 600 registered voters somehow yielded around 2,000 votes for W. I guess I just imagined the fact that those damn Diebold machines were voting for Dubya even after people selected John Kerry.

Yup, I guess I just imagined all that silly election fraud. :sarcasm:

This has been said a million times, so once more won't hurt. Until the party returns to its core values and stops trying to be like the pukes, they will continue to lose.

All these "centrist" assholes from the DLC are doing is trying to protect THEIR position of influence within the party. They are willing to turn their backs on what the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for to keep their little corner of power. Fuck them and the corporate horse they rode in on.

Like the crazy idea they've won the last two elections.

At first, I honestly thought that might be the content of the article. It's the truth... the first thing democrats could do to win more often would be to engage in vote-rigging on the scale that the Republicans have been doing.

Florida, 2000.
Ohio, 2004?
http://www.harpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
Georgia state elections, etc.
www.blackboxvoting.org

Unlike when fraud was committed in the past, this time the e-voting infrastructure is right in place to steal elections every time. I think it would be good for Dems to give up the myth that American elections produce trustworthy results. Candidates should boycott races that have been proven to be highly vulnerable to fraud.

You know this is the dumbest of all DLC positions. The fallacy that supporting the war in Iraq and Bush's preemption policy makes one "strong on defense." I think the fact that they have to adopt a Bush policy to make them "look strong" only underscores their own weakness.

Strength means saying what you believe to be true. Not pandering to FOX news and Rush Limbaugh, who in the end will never support these people anyway.

Glad you could join the fun!

Surely you don't mean that. The net effect would be to simply give the Republicans those positions rather than forcing them to steal them.

Welcome to DU, btw.

-Laelth

maybe they'll screw up so badly they get caught.

And a free press. Until we get those we might as well forget it.

The problem for Democrats is, For the most part our views are more in line with most Americans and more mainstream than those of Republicans. But those views don't work to our advantage in the voting booth.

On abortion, most Americans are anti-criminilization. Yet, it isn't that important to them, so they will vote for a pro-criminilization candidate who matches their views on other issues.

Most Americans don't really care that much about gun control, or even like the idea of some limits. But the extremist NRA people will not vote for a candidate who will promote any restrictions on fire arms, even those that seem common sense to most Americans.

On other issues, such as economics and security, we have failed to articulate why our vision is better and closer to what Americans want.

I seem to remember some survey last year, where when Americans were polled on their viewpoints on issues, the views were actually closer to Democrats, yet the people still voted Republican. For that matter, in 2002, Republicans won all the statewide offices in Florida, but several very liberal referendums passed. The state elected people who had voiced opposition to the very initiatives the people wanted, and for which the people voted.

This should prove we don't need to move to the center, that it is a matter of choosing our battles and better articulating our vision.

Had it possessed one, we wouldn't have seen the collapse on Iraq, the Patriot Act, Gonzales, Roberts, or New Orleans.

Each event offered the party a chance to advance some form of vision through opposition. On each occasion it failed utterly, either appeasing Bushism or retreating sullenly.

I can hardly blame the public for having no enthusiasm for the Democratic Party. Why vote for Bush-lite, when the real thing offers a minuscule tax break?

Better articulation of a dishonest and ineffectual centrism is now pushed by Hillary and Dean on matters such as abortion, soft-peddling which it hopes will endear it to the Jesus crowd; this laughable approach is setting no hearts on fire, while in fact alienating old allies.

This party needs radical, seismic overhaul. First, remove the DLC; excise that right wing cancer completely. Second, wean the party from the corporate teat. Third, embrace economic populism: living wage legislation is the place to start. Fourth, depart from the club of imperialism.

If we can achieve those minor miracles, then, yes, maybe in less than a generation, candidates running on a revitalized platform may stand a chance. Until then, sadly, only futility awaits.

And who is "urging" them?

during the 2004 election but it ended up a basket case.

For example, many voters actually believe Democrats want to ban all guns or at least handguns. To overcome that, the platform was changed to say "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

That sounds like solid support for RKBA but then Kerry was seen shooting a shotgun that would have been banned by the revised assault weapons ban that Kerry sponsored. :shrug:

As long as we ignore the views of independent voters, perhaps 20-30% of the total, on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, religion, and a few other divisive issues, then we will remain the party out of power.

As long as we ignore the views of independent voters, perhaps 20-30% of the total, on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, religion,


Support for Roe v. Wade is about 2-1 in favor. It's only slightly less for independent voters.
We will be ignoring the views of a hell of a lot of voters if we cave in (as the party seems to be doing now).

"Make abortion safe, legal, and rare."

That needs to be hammered home, hard, to counter the crap that the fundys throw out. This party hasn't been able to really vocalize that since he left office. The main problem overall here is that Democratic candidates have been unable to counter the spin, letting the Republicans define the candidates, then we have to spend all this time in defense mode, rather than time spent.

I love John Kerry, voted for him, I got to shake his hand up in NH last year after a speech, talked to his brother Cameron for a few minutes during the primaries but goddammit was that a frustrating campaign to watch.

power if we ignore independents. That's the issue I believe the authors were addressing in their article.

As to abortion, I believe the pro-life crowd has had some success by calling us the anti-life party instead of pro-choice.

The ironic thing is some who oppose abortions support capital punishment, and some who support abortions oppose capital punishment.

We Dems make up perhaps 33% of the voters. It's impossible to gain power if we ignore independents.

We aren't ignoring independents. Most of them support abortion rights too. Most of them think the Iraq war was a mistake too.

It is the REPUBLICANS who are ignoring EVERYONE except their base.
They can get away with it only because they own the media and the voting machinez.

As to abortion, I believe the pro-life crowd has had some success by calling us the anti-life party instead of pro-choice.

That is because they own all the microphones.

The ironic thing is some who oppose abortions support capital punishment, and some who support abortions oppose capital punishment.

Which shows that their rhetoric doesn't hold water, and gains its power only through endless repetition by the captive media.

is not evidence that Democrats ignore independents.

The Democratic position on abortion is as inclusive as it could possibly be.

Third way dems are about a third of the voting electorate, and right wing extremists are a third of the electorate - and Independents are about a third of the voting electorate...

then we have to dump the anachronistic, anti-democratic Electoral College system NOW and implement Proportional Representation/IRV.

And we have to do it NOW.

Most Democrats would support programs aimed at reducing abortion, just not legal prohibition. There is only one opinion on abortion that wont fit into the democratic message, and that is prohbition or bust people, but there is no way to please them with our message without losing the majority of Americans who dont think prohibition is the answer.

The main Democratic stance on same sex marriage, is to support civil unions, not marriage. So the Democrats have no disagreement with christians moralists over marriage.

How does the Democratic party ignore the issue of religion? The Democrats run candidates who talk openly about the importance of faith and spirituality. The only people the Democrats do not agree with are those people who want to see significant state involvement with religion, and like those who want to prohibit abortion, this is a minority group in this country who cannot be pleased without abandoning the majority that support the constitution.

People who refuse to vote for anyone who isnt for prohibition of abortion or anyone who defends the constitutional ban on state involvement in religion are not independents.

a single issue aren't independent.

I have several friends who do that and ignore other political issues and party affiliation

However indepenent they may be in other senses.

Maybe you should admit you're a REPUKE then!

These are our CORE ISSUES!

Without these, we cease to be "Democrats".

Fuck the gays, women and secular society!

No thanks, "honey"!

....

Boys and gilrs, wasn't Kerry a STRONG defense candidate with strong credeintials INCLUDING a purple heart? Thought so... so you thing GOTV is useless.

Now I am convinced the DLC WANTS to continue lossong elections, they are not ready to face the truth... system is rigged.

Yeah, that's a winning strategy. This DLC crap is really hurting us.

The biggest myth is that progressive issues aren't winning issues. The right and their fellow travelers at DLC push that one.

are:

1) We can get a level playing field.

No can do. Why? Because the GOP has worked long and hard to brainwash as many fools as it can reach, while subverting the information delivery systems with corporate intrusions, propanganda, bribes, fraud, ad homien attacks and strawman arguments. Instead of trying to amend or repair this system of lie delivery, we must develop our own method of disseminating facts and truths and counterarguments, which we have already begun: alternative press, alternative cinema, alternative television, all spun off the prime motivator: the Internet. We also need to revive that old boogey man: the party machine. As long as that machine is devoted to the public, instead of the reigning "public servant", it will serve the country well. Unions must start concentrating on the long-term growth of membership, and leave short-term political gains out of their plans. They will do more for this country and for upstanding political movements by bringing estranged workers together in common cause.

2) It's every Democrat for himself.

It has been the hallmark of the GOP that they hang together (and with any luck, we will see the ultimate expression of that principle in the courts!) The Democrats, meanwhile, are famous for rugged individualism, especially the white males. They argue and contradict and feud in public, squabbling over crumbs while the larger prize and the public's meal ticket gets mangled by the GOP machine. They swap freedom of choice for a military base or environmental law for a highway bill. This has got to stop. There must be a clear, simple set of principles that constitute what it means to be a Democrat, and anyone wanting to identify with the party must sign on and support these with word and deed. Anything else is a betrayal of the constituency that votes for them. Emily's List, the Black Caucus, the Women's Caucus, all provide models of how to hammer out common ground and defend it. It must be done across the country, so that everybody is quite clear on what one gets with Brand Democrat. And then, using the delivery system developed in Point 1 above, we must defend the brand against the GOP Swiftboaters. I think this is where Kerry and Clinton have let us down the most, while GORe was more a victim of not getting point 1.

It's as simple as that.

Peace.

1. GW won Florida 2000

2. GW won Ohio and Florida 2004 and there was no mass voting fraud.

3. Bush is anything beyond a world class criminal, embezzelor of billions in US monies for corporate fraud by misreporting their purpose, mass murderer, and political criminal trying to invoke genocide on a non-christian race.

Fucking RW/corporate plant.

What they are proposing is exactly what Dems did in 2004. The "we believe in this general area" lines coming from Dems is what gave them the Waffle stuff. This article is bullshit and probably comes from Repubs.

shattering, but without a basic commitment to a philosophy that voters can follow, being a party of individual candidates gets us no where fast.

What the centrists have never analysed is that Clinton won in 1992 for 2 reasons.

First he was elected to make a major overhaul in healthcare and get us a system that would cover everyone. A system that would cut out the waste of the private insurence industry and a system that would prevent the drug industry from price gouging.

Second, without Perot in the race sucking votes from bush, Clinton very easily might have lost.

It wasn't triangulation that got Clinton elected. That is the myth they cling to though.

Gore on the other hand won handily even with a challenge from the right. Plus a ton of cheating on the right. So the analysis is fraught with myths of their own.

and ABOLISH the ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM.

Abolishing the Electoral College System and implementing Proportional Representation will resolve the so called "spoiler" issue in all future Presidential elections, diminish greatly the status quo, "winner take all" which will continue to be a factor as the two partys continue to be controlled by the elite ruling class controlling each party (DLC and the Neo-Cons) who have little incentive in protecting the rights and freedoms of Citizens over the interests of Multi-Nationals Corporations, etc.

Abolishing the EC and implementing PR/IRV will bring more direct, participatory, actual representative democracy to our governance and is the only viable path to wresting control of our country from the hands of the powerful fascist regime that have risen to power and hijacked our country, our constitution, our judiciary, our media etc.

And it's the only way that the DP base can actually have a real voice in what we want for our future.

I urge everyone to bring this issue to the forfront of our elections reform movement, along side with the abolishing of electronic voting machines and clean money campaigns etc.

Every time I hear the phrase "a strong defense," I want to throw things at the TV screen.

That's the same Reaganite bullshit that helped get us into our current financial mess. For all the talk of "not throwing money at problems," the Republicans have thrown so much money at the Pentagon that it is unable to account for $2 trillion.

That's $2 trillion of taxpayer money that has been a) embezzled, b) spent on illegal black ops, or c) just plain mislaid, or d) all of the above.

Here's what the Democratic position on defense should be:

1) The Pentagon should get no more increases until it accounts for the missing $2 trillion. (A side note on how a stack of 2 trillion one-dollar bills would reach to the moon and back might be helpful. I bet the "lost" Pentagon money is greater than the amount of taxpayers' money spent on "welfare" for the last fifty years or so.) Call for the prosecution of those who squandered taxpayers's money and endangered national security by misappropriating funds. (We need to break through the mindset that says that all money sent to the Pentagon is well-spent and absolutely necessary while all other spending is "wasteful.")

2) Defense should be restructured to deal with actually existing threats, and leftovers from the Cold War (Those bases in Germany are protecting Germany from what, exactly?) or video game-like fantasy projects (Star Wars) should be shut down, with savings diverted to improving the quality of life and equipment needs of enlisted personnel.

3) No more sending young Americans to die invading countries that merely piss off the U.S. establishment. American military action will be limited to countries that actually attack or are seriously preparing to attack the U.S., to countries that attack allies, and to countries that are committing genocide.

An informational campaign using the internet,cable news,talk radio,mailings etc. to convince the American people that we have the right agenda for the future of the country and not the republicans. This is what they have been doing for the past 25 years or so, and now their base may be a little larger than ours. Changing the landscape won't happen overnight, but we have two things going for us: The policies of the current *admistrations are having horrendous consequences and so much of their rhetoric is based on falsehoods.

The other thing I would urge is that Democrats adopt a 50 state strategy, not a 22 state strategy. A 50 state strategy is a ticket to winning 30 states, while a 22 state strategy is a strategy for winning 16 states.

As for the strong on national security stuff, that's fine, but supporting the Iraq war and endless occupation should not be a litmus test to demonstrate that one has the national security credentials to be president.

Where they really really fail is calling this a myth: "The belief Democrats can succeed politically if they simply learn to talk more effectively about positions.

It is consultants like these that undermine Democrats who state thier positions clearly and unequivocally thereby costing us elections.

This is the school of thought of saying as little as possible and double talking so as not to turn any voter off and never putting any views on the record. It's wrong, and the wishy washy charge that has been levelled at both Kerry and the Gore 2000 campaign is a direct result of the larger problem that politicians listen to consultants who promote mealy-mouthedness. It is because of candidates following this say nothing playbook that average people become turned off by some Democrats. Both Dean and Bill Clinton understand this, the idea that it's better to be strong and wrong than to beat around the bush. If these sort of consultants continue to undermine Democrats on this particular point we will continue to lose elections.

As we continue to march along this consultant driven line of selecting candidates who never express opinions thereby not offending or displeasing anyone, we end up with more and more opaque politicians with less and less experience (the Bush model) and will ultimately wind up only being able to run a presidential candidate raised by wolves for the first 35 years and pulled from the wilderness so that no human opinions will be on the record and the candidate can be all things to all people.

What was it Benjamin Franklin said?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

It was my one myth.

Last I heard, the majority of Americans were beginning to see things our way. Now, after one little speech, everything returns to normal?

This is the same old tired "third way" crap they've been shilling since the early 90's. Why is it news, Will Lester of the Associated Press?

The ideas aren't even logically consistent. The GOP did a great job of organizing their base and took it to election victory, so the Dems should ignore their base and play out the nuances of the "third way."

Of course, they don't mention how many of those poor people in New Orleans were victims of Clinton's "third way" welfare reform. It seems to have helped them a great deal.

Here is the Dem strategy: have some f'n conviction (i.e. balls). Our ideas are better, you just need to present them with as if you were advertising for a major mortgage corporation. In other words, "we know you don't want to know the details, but you trust us enough with with your financial well-being." Don't get too detailed, people just want to know they can trust you with the keys.

Oh yeah, and have an agenda beyond rehashing the 60's. Like renewable, domestic energy or universal health care. It's time for a new product.

This article needs some modification. We don't need to energize our base, we need to solidify it more than energize it. It's all ready energized but fragmented and pulling in different directions.

It's like when an untrained person throws a bolo. The balls go tugging in all different directions and end up fighting against each other.

Also, one thing the DU crowd needs to come to grips with is that the "center" is where a lot of money is and our greedy bastard centrists know that and want more of it.

Sure, the internet has broke grounds when coming to fund raising, but how many out there think an investigation into internet money raising wouldn't reveal some huge violations and that the reason the Rethugs aren't saying anything about it is that they see it for the cash cow it can become for them as well.

As for our Core beliefs, all we have to do is draft up a simple and easy to follow illustration that depicts how we are. We MUST adapt to how the thinking and information age is changing in the US and we are terrible at this. It baffles me how terrible the Dems are at getting the message out in easy to follow and understandable ways.

... join the DLC and become Republican-Lite.

NO, thank you. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

So the DLC tries to change what we tell people we believe. Doesn't the DLC realize that people see through tactics like that and that's why they say Democrats have no values?

Also: They keep saying more support for defense. The elected party members have been supporting defense all along and they still lose. If the DLC wants a different result than losing, they should try a different tactic. Try standing up to the US playing world policeman. I think the public is very tired of our policeman role.

without a POPULOUS spokesman like a Clinton.

sorry, can't be done and NEVER has been done.

peace

All except for the Black Caucus.

Sorry. As a Democrat, I'm not going to abandon it. I don't trust Republicans in any way shape or form.

The American people will vote according to their paychecks and empty promises. Things get hard enough they will vote for any thing that looks like a port in the storm. This is the only thing that is not a myth.

then we all can talk about strategy.

Otherwise, it's pissing in the wind.

It appears the corporate and media masters are becoming really concerned about the future of the Republican party.

This garbage indicates either:

1. They're trying to manipulate their way back into controlling Dems - who stand to benefit from Repub losses

or

2. They're trying to reinforce losing strategies of Dem leadership in hopes of keeping Repubs in control


Pure, unadulterated garbage.

were that bush "won" and Gore "lost". And that bush really won in Ohio..those are the election myths that I'm worried about.

Another one the dinos are carrying on with is ..lets be more like the repukes..they seem to be such winners :puke:

in elections.

Clinton won because of his centrist positions -- he won in '92 because of Perot!!

they lie is another thing i'll say for them.

i agree with the poster who argued that they purposely promote a losing strategy.

Otherwise, remember who these centrist roadkill are, and their imbecilic bullsh*t. And never let Americans forget it, ever. They should have no future in the Democratic Party.

That kind of deceitfulness would have gone way beyond pragmatism, before the election. But now, it's clear that Kerry won it by a massive majority, it's verges on the criminal.

The reason Kerry didn't win was because he did not mobilze the base or speak effectively about the issues. There is no "Myth " there. They actually did a study that showed that more inner city mobilization would have won Kerry the elections (and probably more voting machines) These "moderates" are just advocating more of the same.

You can see the results in some cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, where their were many groups involved that mobilized the base and some that actually drove people to the elections. Many Democrats want to shut these groups up, I believe they have been doing it all along and more of the same isn't going to help anyone.

n/t

Take a look at the polls for 2000 and 2004. The Democrats took the "middle" both times. The problem was a defection of the Democratic "base" to both the left AND the right. The biggest differential was a 4% Republican defection rate versus a 16 to 19% Democratic one. How is it possible to blame Nader for the 2000 loss and simultaneously claim that mobilizing the base "is not enough".

Minimize what you stand for and the base drifts away...

Never heard of them anyway. Hacks. Flacks.

Democrats can win by running on the righteous history of our own achievements. The moral high ground is ours. We are FOR the people. FOR THE PEOPLE.

I have not worked in a US campaign since 88, so it may be that I am one that darkens counsel by words without knowledge, however here it is.

After the Thatcher years the unelectable Labour party reformed itself in exactly these terms and now it is the previously unbeatable Conservatives that are unelectable. They are seeking their fifth leader since Thatcher (and are not liking the choices). Their problem is that Blair is their ideal Conservative leader but in the wrong party, he pushes all the right buttons for them.

That said, the Labour government, being, at least in theory, collegiate has done a lot that the Conservatives would never have considered, like instituting a minimum wage. For us it has been swings and roundabouts. It is posible to turn your party into what the electorate want to vote for, but the result is mixed.

My thought on why you lost the last election (I know you know you didn't, but look who is in the White House), is because the republicans finally discovered how to get out the vote. This is a lesson that they are not going to unlearn. Your local committees and activists on the ground are going to have to do better. Winning the argument and getting what we would call 'crosses on ballot papers' are not the same thing. Your GOTV program (that we call 'the pull') needs to be in planning now. It is in some ways a shame that you don't have political parties in the Europen sense, as outside election year your core activists seem rudderless and baffled.

We have compulsory registration (everyone registers as independent) which helps.

And also, I forgot to say, unelected career bureaucrats in charge of the polls.

To win back a majority we can't just rely on base GOTV nor on attacking the R's (though we still have to do both). We have to do PERSUASION again, expand the electoral map, and get back blue collar folks who have gone over to the GOP on the so-called cultural issues. How do we do that? We do what John Edwards and others have been saying by coming back to our roots as the PARTY OF THE PEOPLE that is not owned by corporations and works entirely for the folks and THEIR interests. By establishing big, compelling national and international goals based on populist values. NOW IS PRIME TIME TO DO THIS!! Like it or not, we do have to think about some of the cultural issues and how to be more effective on them. We need to push media reform given most of the media is owned by the right. We need real election reforms. We need to set up community Democratic constituent service outlets available for EVERYONE who has a problem and needs help. We need to do 50-STATE campaigns in every district in the country and not 20-state campaigns. We need to do real grassroots organizing again in local organizations. We do need to think about national security policy and how we can be more effective on that. And we need to UNITE all moderate and progressive Dems around common core values instead of the silly infighting which shrinks that party and help the GOP.