That W.'s presidency is bad is NOT self-evident.

We Democrats think it's obvious that Bush is hands-down the worst president ever (or at least IMO up there with Harding et al) and that it's plain obvious because he's so stupid, corrupt, and evil.

Well, it may be true, but it's not self-evident, and I think we forget that and hurt our case because of it.

The average American does not want to hear that only stupid people vote for Bush because many average Americans voted for Bush, including the absolute smartest man that I know. The average American does not want to hear how obvious it is that Bush is horrible because to the average American it's not obvious.

We need to focus on making our case on facts, not emotion. Internally, we can rant all we want, and I'm sure we will and it's fun and it passes the time. But when we're trying to win over voters in the future, we need to remember not to exaggerate Bush's flaws, and we need to respect that some people voted for Bush because they genuinely thought he was the better candidate, and they're not idiots for it. Just misinformed.

I hope this doesn't sound preachy, and I'm not trying to offer a post mortem on the election. I just think people get annoyed and that this "Bush is obviously a failure because I said so" is how we get a reputation as elitist, arrogant, etc.

it's almost a moot point now, since Bush won't be running again. We need to start thinking about what is right with the Democratic party--or what should be right with it.
I disagree about disregarding emotion in elections. The Republicans do that very well, and they've reaped the benefits. Unfortunately many voters respond to emotion over facts. We need to figure out a way to combine both.

The facts do not support the republican positions. They are fabulous manipulators of emotion.

Examples would include manipulations of the terror alerts, bashing people for being unpatriotic, and accusing people of not supporting the troops.

Look at the so called "Security Moms". The whole point of this group was women that *felt* that Bush would protect their families. This was not an election about facts.

Remember Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine? What is Moore's theory about what's wrong in our country? It's the constant use of fear in the media. Bush exploited that fact. Now look at what we have.

I've been using facts to try and convince *some* of my republican friends of why Bush is a morally bad person...and they just won't accept it. Some of my friends are just misinformed. Some are willfully ignorant because of their religious beliefs. They believe the TV and commercials over reason.

Since when is reason considered "elitest"?

as they started pushing their anti-intellectual bullshit about the universities being the last bastions of communism.

"Because they don't agree with us, universities are communist and intellectuals are elitist (think that they are smarter than everybody else.)"

It's a Catch 22.

Our problem we deal in too many facts. Facts can be debated and we do it here all the time......emotions can NOT be debated. Bush supporters just liked him. trusted him and believed in him.......you go try and argue someone beliefs......I had a assisted mgr of my supermarket ,whom was probably mid 30's, tell me he couldn't vote for Kerry because he didn't trust what he was saying about his war record. I didn't even respond. he trusted what Bushit said about his record?

either doesn't watch the news, doesn't read newspapers, or doesn't view politics objectively. In other words, perhaps the smartest man you know voted for Bush over an inflammatory issue like anti-gay rights or abortion. In those cases, no amount of objective fact-finding will change their views...and in that case I would challenge their intelligence.

so if you want to write them off without making an effort to understand their concerns, you've already consigned the Democratic party to perpetual electoral failure.

I am smart enough to realize, though, that many of those voters supported Bush over non-issues.

What you consider a "non-issue" is an issue to some, causing them to vote repug. If enough people vote based on their respective non-issues, then it'll be an issue, like it or not.

is devision a solid communications strategy for neutralizing their bogus messages and guerrilla propaganda campaigns. Such as the church based "gay marriage" scare.

Part of this communications strategy has to include independent, progressive media outlets. Expansion, and publicity of AAR is a good start.

I'm gonna get an AAR bumper sticker and put it on my car, damn it!!

because the main stream media covers up so much and therefore they just don't believe us.

Conservative takeover of the media was part of their long term strategy to regain power. We need to do the same. We need to encourage some of the super rich Dems like George Soros to buy radio and television stations.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I want some Democratic bazillionaires to buy mass media outlets. Its critical that we have a means to get the FACTSSS (yeah I screamed, sorry, this dirves me crazy) out to the many many people who believe something because the TV person said it.

winning elections in the future must be about suppressing the fundie/flag waving voter turnout. This hopefully will occur in the upcoming mid-term elections. Since rightwingers control all branches of government it will be harder for the Republicans to manufacture any sense of urgency to get their base out to vote.

Once they get those few precious senate seats to become filibuster proof, they don't need that fundie trash anymore. They can legislate anything they want. All states must use 'certified' evote machines, etc.

Bush's record speaks for itself. Anyone who can look at it and say that his failures aren't self-evident is never going to be swayed by logic. Their loyalty is based on emotion, whether it's fear or bigotry or bloodlust or all of the above.

Democrats need to play the same emotional game. However, *unlike* Republicans, Democrats could make a very strong emotional argument that's actually based in reality. Class division.

It's not self-evident that the Iraq war is failing - after all, some resistance is expected and we did depose Saddam. It's not self-evident that the economy is faltering - after all, the Bush administration is posting record job growth figures. It's not self-evident that Bush hasn't made us safer at home, it's not self-evident that his education policies suck, etc.

Saying "Bush's record speaks for itself" insults undecided voters by implying that they're too stupid to see the obvious and gives them no reason to come to our side.

invasion of a disarmed country. Don't give me this "we deposed Saddam" crap. That's not why we went there and Saddam was a powerless old man who was no threat to anyone. It is a complete and total FAILURE!

I can't believe how many fantasy-land fairy tales Americans are prepared to make up about our invasion of Iraq!

But when most people think of what has or hasn't been accomplished in the war, the first thing that comes to mind is that Saddam is gone. I mean, we're meeting resistance in a bunch of places but unless you're paying attention it's hard to follow. My point, had you read more carefully, is that what is the most obvious thing in the world to us, needs to be explained better than "It is a complete and total failure."

"self evident", that would just mean that he had a piss poor PR team.

Try as I might, his sheer incompetance, arrogance, criminality, and pyschosis, are beyond adequate description.

Much like his equally indescribable predecessor the "Gipper".

I am from a red state and if I was depending on the newspapers or the regular television media to tell me the truth about this administration I would be sadly disappointed. The media in this area loves Bush and anything republican so they excel in covering up all the garbage that this administration is doing to regular people.

Media complacency or acceptance of things that would not have been acceptable years ago IS having an effect on Joe Public.

is that Corporate Media needs to be called to account for their lack of objectivity. Since this may be just a fools errand, we should reinstate media regulations, that decentralize the media, at the legislative level.

After all, how many corporate media conglomerates are we down to now? Six? Nine?

Florida
Ohio
BBV

911
The Patriot Act
Anthrax
The war in Iraq
Plame
Torture

The market crash
Taxes
The deficit
The dollar
Jobs

Clean Air
Clean Water
Kyoto

Flue vaccine shortage
Viox
Mad Cow
FDA DOA

Yea, it's not obvious

Florida
Ohio
BBV

911
The Patriot Act
Anthrax
The war in Iraq
Plame
Torture

The market crash
Taxes
The deficit
The dollar
Jobs

Clean Air
Clean Water
Kyoto

Flue vaccine shortage
Viox
Mad Cow
FDA DOA

Yea, it's not obvious

Florida, Ohio and BBV - no smoking gun that would convince anyone who doesn't want to believe to begin with. I'm sorry, the evidence just isn't that strong. It might win you an award in a civil court but it wouldn't get you a conviction in a criminal court. Maybe after more discovery.

911 - if it is inconceivable than the proof must be extraordinary and incontrovertable. Circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it here. The best Argument the Dems could make is one of failure to heed intelligence, but even than, that message is lost in the "Bush ordered it" rant that follows and in the fact that the administration can point to what they were doing, all be it slowly, about the problem.

And just who has The Patriot Act unjustly caught? certianly not someone from middle America. Toss in the sunset provision of the legislation and the Republicans have political cover.

Anthrax - again, circumstantial at best as to who did what. There's political cover.

The war in Iraq - It's not the mess everyone told us it would be before we went, it's not the bed of roses Bush said it would be either. It's a wash. And keep in mind, most American's believe the news will tell the worst and not say anything about what is good.

Plame - um, the Plame issue is not an issue a regular voter is going to follow. There just isn't traction there.

Torture - it's war, what do you expect? The evidence given indicates it wasn't widespread to the general population of prisoners. damaging, but only a nick.

Market was heading south before Bush took office, so long as they can point to that they can also point to the tax cuts as making the crash less severe. whether you believe that or not isn't important, what is important is that was the message and it was bought. Again, political cover that you have to make the case from start to finish to cut through.

Taxes - most people think that tax cuts should, dollar wise, go more to the people who actually pay taxes. Since half the country doesn't pay any taxes, it makes the pool of citizens getting the tax cut kinda small to begin with. Doesn't matter how unfair it seems. It's a wash issue. Joe American knows it sounds wrong, but can't rationalize it as being wrong.

Deficit - most voters grew up with deficits. most voters understand that there is a difference between today's dollars and yesterday's dollars. And as a percentage of GDP it isn't that bad. That's not to say that there isn't a large block of voters who honestly believe deficits are bad, but theres a war on you know, and how could have Bush known the economy would tank this bad. Again, political excuses. And the samrt voters will notice that repaying debt with weaker dollars is a good thing.

The dollar - you're argument presumes that a weaker dollar is a bad thing. That is not a fact in evidence. One could reasonable argue that a weaker dollar makes American manufacturers more competitive, preventing more movement of jobs overseas. Among a host of other arguments in favor of allowing the slide of the dollar to continue.

Jobs - do you mean jobs or job quality? just saying jobs doesn't cut it. And in terms of jobs, the unemployment rate hasn't risen so much as to signal a problem that cannot be over come with politics. that's just the way it is. Make the case you want to make.

Clean Air - you made a case here? ever? in the last year?

Clean Water - is this that arsenic thing again? Setting federal standards lower than what is existent in local ground water for much of the country. rural America largely viewed that as another unfunded federal mandate - spun, of course, to blame Clinton.

Kyoto - hmmmm, reasonable suspicion of the science of global warming and a cost in excess of 10 trillion dollars. If the weather man can't predict the weather next week how on earth can anyone believe a weatherman who says he can predict the weather 100 years out? And while you're at it, explain why Mars is warming.

Flue Vaccine - again, simple to spin, with the CDC buying half of the vaccine supply at a no profit rate it doesn't take much, a single lawsuit would do it, to eat up all the profits. If it was worth doing from a business prospective there wouldn't have been a shortage, but it isn't worth doing. Again, easily spun as a wash or a minor negative. Or did you not notice all the stories about how the flu vaccine is only about 60% effective to begin with....and may not even cover this years flu anyway.

It's not obvious, not to the average voter. Make the case from start to finish. You know the story, you know the impact but the average voter doesn't. Either you make the case or no one does and if no one will it certainly is not obvious. Make the case, from start to finish, make the case by telling what the impact is to the voters life, make the case by presenting the better alternative.

since W. took office. It is self-evident, and people are either too brainwashed or too stupid to see it. Note that the people running the Bush administration know exactly how to use this to their advantage; they have developed a message based around fear and anger because they know these emotions can win votes. The Democrats have logic on their side, but unfortunately emotions are generally stronger than reason. We have to infuse our politicians and our campaigns with issues that tap into emotions or we may never win.


3DO

........putting party over country.

I'm trying to figure out how people who KNOW Bush is an idiot, and have admitted they think he is, but said they STILL voted for him got to that point.

to the STOOOOOOOOOPID! :evilgrin:

obviously isn't too smart.

As for your post, it IS preachy. Most of us do deal with facts. It's the right that doesn't. And as for the average American voter, I'll say this, they're retarded. Many "Average American voters" believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Many of these same people thought WMD have been discovered.

Their ENTIRE campaign was one based on emotion - FEAR. It was based on fear of brown people and gays.

I'm fuckin sick of people trying to justify why these people voted the way they did.

They're the ones dominated by religious fanatics. Please tell me, which side it is that is dominated by emotions, not facts?

The facts show he has done a terrible job. What are you talking about?

assuming arrogantly that everybody smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time knows Bush is a failure. It's the whole attitude that we have, that our case is so daggone obvious when it must not be.

The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.

There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland.

Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction.

What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.

Adolf Hitler

than emotion.

...if the Democratic Leadership began speaking about bush* with
obvious contempt, ridicule, and sarcastic exaggeration. I'm tired of the highroad. It hasn't done us ANY good.

If EVERYBODY starts ridiculing (making fun of) the Boy with No Clothes some of the sheep will follow along just for the laughs.

Honest debate should be beneath our contempt. Logic and well constructed arguments are no use with the Republican voter. Just show them the pictures with laughter and say," Boy, he really fucked this one! But Hey, this is YOUR guy!"

I know this approach is childish, but we are dealing with children who are love their Strong Daddy. If they become ashamed of their Daddy, they will abandon him.

We WON the election, and they stole it. We WON in 2000 and they stole it.

We don't need to do anything except get rid of the evil voting machines. This is the only thing that matters.