Which strategy would win Kerry the election?

I apologize if you need the below terms to be defined--as near as I can tell, many of them are not definable. But in terms of 'centrist' and 'progressive', think American political compass, not international.

left populism is a proven American campaign strategy, populism against the wealthy, against the corporations, for the little guy, etc.

For that Edwards is perfect.

It gets support in areas that some usually identify as "centrist" and it also fires up the traditional base as well.

The death knell would be for the Dems to follow a DLC, Repub-lite strategy. No reason to vote Dem if the Dems stand for the same thing as the Repubs...

I can understand the motives for it--it defuses any major reason for the corporate and political power brokers to go after you vigorously, and it appeals to the folks who don't pay much attention, or vote on 'character'. The media will not eviscerate him to the degree they would if he was preaching breakup of the media conglomerates, immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a significant slashing of the Defense budget.

The downside is, he is never going to be as effective at this strategy as Bush--he has to hope that Bush angers enough people for him to win, rather than hope that he himself will inspire enough people to win. The moderate campaign is NOT an exciting campaign for the base, but since most voters are in the soft middle, taking the major media line for most events and issues, it theoretically can bring the votes.

The thing I miss most about a populist, play-to-progressives campaign is the excitement. You can look at Kerry's Senate record and see that he's more liberal than his campaign so far indicates, but that doesn't get the base excited. The downside to this is that the media and the political power brokers will stop at nothing to destroy you. That, and either the media creates an apathy among voters for progressive candidates or most voters simply don't care for them--the activists work their tails off and build an impressive organization, and then all too often it falls apart at the ballot box.

I think either strategy can win, but I honestly have no idea which is better in this case, and the success or failure of one doesn't really prove which one is better.

With all the talk we’ve had about ‘electability,’ why continue to ignore the one issue which has the most appeal to so many people who are otherwise conservative?

The issue that I believe will put the Democratic candidate right over the top will be his condemnation of NAFTA/GATT, free trade, and his pledge to end our participation in the World Trade Organization. If he wants to win by a comfortable margin, all he has to do is that. The massive number of red states that voted for Bush last election will turn to blue, and he will waltz into the White House like a halfback who strolls untouched into the end zone. End of game. –Carl Worden, conservative Christian columnist for the Sierra Times, Bush voter in 2000.

Candidates always make appeals to their base and to the middle.

Quite frankly, I think the biggest appeal won't be directly made by the campaign. It'll be made in people's head. A desire to wipe the slate clean. A mess has to be cleaned up.

but i also like it that kerry isn't ignoring nader and acknowledging those who may vote for nader and nader himself by meeting with him.

Like another poster said, economic populism is the best way to appeal to moderates and those who don't vote often. Especially in the South and Midwest. Standing for something wins elections.

Speaking about job loss due to free trade and proposing more solutions than adjusting the tax code. Not being afraid to point out the unfair influence and power large corporations have in the political process. Pointing out that millionaires got thousands of dollars in tax cuts under Bush while the rest of us got nickles and dimes. Pointing out that every single policy Bush has ever enacted in some way benefits large corporate campaign donors.

Someone who says that the People should be the powerfull, not the rich and corporations. Economic populism is a message of empowerment for the average person, for fairness, and economic justice.

That's why this is a difficult poll to make, and a difficult one to answer--'populist' and 'centrist' are going to have different definitions for different people. It's an imperfect poll, but I think in my view your answer would be more the 'populist' option than the 'centrist'.

I contend that populism is the most effective way to win over moderate swing voters in the South and Midwest. I'm dissapointed in liberals who are too insecure with their ideology to believe that it can appeal to the masses.

Don't go looking for them on my account, though--don't want to take up your time. Intuitively I think you are correct--enconomic populism seems as though it should be a powerful tool to win back the blue collar South/Midwest. I'll have to check around for an example of a successful economic populist campaign in the South and Midwest--Edwards ran a halfway economic populist campaign, and Dennis did it all the way, but both had other mitigating factors that may have led to their defeat in the primaries.

he actually voted against those things and that's what most of his campaign was based on, yet he didn't do too well either . and he often went after kerry for supporting some of the trade deals so it's not like he didn't make it an issue.

But his loss in Iowa was surprising, given his history of labor support, and his past Iowa win. It's difficult to see if this reflects recent voting trends, reflects the snapshot-in-time political climate, or reflects long-held views of the voting public. The news could have been against these guys for a week or two, or the undecideds could have firmly decided against these guys months ahead of time--it's probably just a lot of fruitless head-scratching on my part. :D

i will use iwr as the best example. while many were against the iraq war many did not view kerry as having supported what bush was doing based on the iwr vote. they really did believe he would have done things different.

and this could be the case with nafta and other trade deals. especially since kerry would also emphasize his record on the environment and other issues. one criticism of nafta is weak environmental regulations, but kerry has a great record on the environment. and he would often talk about job creation when discussing the environment. so while people did see nafta as taking away jobs, they also thought kerry would do something to fix that and help create jobs at home.

the image kerry put out of himself was also very effective. like those ads kerry has out right now. while it doesn't address many of the bush lies directly it does show kerry and his ties to military service in a positive way, with his friends and family telling about service and giving back to your country. when people hear this about someone they are less likely to believe this person would have voted against money for troops as bush claims in his ads.

so it's not as simple as just being against or for certain specific things like nafta. if it was gephardt would easily have won, especially since edwards himself never said he would repeal it.

I've noticed a number of Republican campaigns in the South that use economic populism, where Democrats are too afraid of the class warfare charge. It seems like if the Republicans have figured out it works in the South we should be able to use it too.

Gore was returning to his Tennessee roots when he started talking about the "people v the powerful." I never really liked that theme though since it implied that power didn't rest with the people. Still, it was a nice attempt at populism and his poll numbers went up after he did that.

Edwards, Gephardt and Kucinich have all done well in their respective states. Gephardt had more credibility as a populist in '88 when he won in Iowa than he does today. His support for the WTO and Iraq war did damage. Illinois Governor Rod Blagojavech ran as a populist, but he's fouling up for other reasons. Arkansas has a strong populist tradition as well, that both parties attempt to take advantage of. Of course, Clinton used populist themes in '92, including partial opposition to NAFTA, even if his economic policies were a mixed bag once he got into office.

So Kucinich and Gephardt may have had an easier job of it, being beholden to Cleveland and St. Louis as opposed to the entire state or nation. Wellstone is a good example for state-wide... recently I suppose Ross Perot would be the closest thing to a modestly successful economic populist on the national election stage. Edwards ran without a political record in NC, so I'm reluctant to use that as an example--his good showing in the primaries based mainly on his 'two Americas' rhetoric gives some support to the idea, however.

This is a great idea...but I don't think Kerry could pull it off. Edwards could in his sleep, but not Kerry.

Haven't heard that in a while.

There are no masses. There are hundreds of discrete blocs voting their self-interest. Economic populism plays well in some parts of flyover country, where it has links with racism and ultra-nationalism. That is not a constituency we are going to win, no matter what.

There's no point in playing to the midwestern populism crowd. The anti-WTO rock throwing Seattle crowd is more fertile, but 1) they don't vote, and 2) they're probably all going to back Nader anyway.

I'd much rather have a Clintonian free trader and actually do something that will help the eocnomy in the long run. Kerry seems to understand that.

A lot of Unions and blue collar workers, not just rock-throwing activists. I'm sorry you equate populism with racism, but I don't think that attack is relevant to this discussion.

Those of us in the middle America "fly over" country you seem to love are tired of seeing the kind of "help" free trade brings. Many people are tired of losing good paying Union jobs that are replaced with low-wage jobs at places like Wal-Mart and McDonalds. I think people in the South and Midwest have been hit harder by the myths of the current free trade agenda and see the realities of it faster than out of touch east and west coast elitist liberals.

I'm quite familiar with flyover country, thanks, and I didn't "equate" anything with anything.

Bickering is self-defeating -- at the end of the day, we've got a bigger problem now. Win first, then fight over policy.

...mental midget like Bush.

Well not really.

Kerry is be seen historically as a progressive moderate. Or maybe a liberal progressive with some moderate on the side.

Clinton was way too right for my taste in some respects. Kerry will definitely be left of him on many issues and stand tall and make it happen.

You can't win a national election with only the left-wing "activist" vote. Just ask Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich.

Kerry's biggest problem right now is that he can be easily portrayed as a waffler-- which is not necessarily true. Unfortunately, he's guilty of using politico-speak instead of English when he makes his statements, which makes it hard for average people to understand and easier for opponents to slander him, because he doesn't seem to really say ANYTHING.

He needs to take REAL stands, for example:
"The Iraq war is WRONG-- we need to end it NOW rather than eventually".

"'Free Trade' is NOT free. We need FAIR TRADE which values the rights of people over corporate profit".

"In 1776, we declared independence from the British crown. In 2005, we need to declare independence from mideast oil."


More than anything, people in this country appreciate a straight shooter-- NOT somebody who has been focus-grouped and "politically advised" and "spin doctored" beyond recognition.

Sen. Kerry needs to just SPEAK ENGLISH. Take principled stands, stick with them, and don't back down at the first sign of attack. Voters want to vote FOR somebody, not just AGAINST the other guy. Don't be afraid of the Repubs: call them on their failures, and tell people how you will do better.

I don't think Byzantine statements and a centrist strategy reflect fear of the Republicans, but I think they do have to do with stroking the media and giving many sides of the voting population something to agree with. Bush does the same thing--saying something that sounds moderate on its face, while enacting a hardcore right wing policy under that moderate banner.

Straight shooters do not exist in national politics--you are going to have to lie, compromise your values, and knowingly obfuscate things to win nationally. Dean, for example, often declared himself to be the only candidate against the Iraq war while Kucinich had been there all along--that's not honest, but it's just politics and the nature of a campaign, not a crippling Dean flaw. Kerry's problem that Dean did not have is that the nature of his campaign strategy (right or wrong) requires these speeches and statements that will not excite the base at all, and in fact will piss many progressives off.

...which, unfortunately, seems to be the way the DLCers want him to run.

I'd also like to remind them that their idol, Bill Clinton, NEVER won a presidential election with a majority of the popular vote. In fact, Ross Perot was a greater factor in his 1992 victory than Bush I. In 1996, he had the incumbency effect, which made the election his to lose.

Gore in 2000, however, had the Nader specter on his left, while he desperately tried to cling to a non-existant "middle ground" (which was actually further right ideologically than Reagan in most respects). That cost him a lot of support on the left, and didn't gain him anything on the right. Had Gore appealed to his "base" PLUS the disaffected/Nader vote on the left, we would have won-- even in Florida.

Since the Great Depression, the Democrats who have won the presidency tend to be the ones with the coherant VISION for the country: FDR, JFK, even LBJ with the Great Society, and Clinton as well. When we don't articulate WHY we're different, we don't win-- unless there's a strong 3rd party movement to muddy the waters.

John Kerry needs to articulate his VISION-- not just his policy statements, but his overarching view of America. THAT is what attracts voters to a candidate. Specifics are great for policy wonks, but they aren't what appeal to your average voter.

Lots of weird factors in the Gore race that we thankfully don't have this time, including an 'unknown' Bush (people paying attention knew he was a pissing nightmare, but apparently the media did not), a Nader candidacy whose 'the parties are the same' rhetoric seemed true enough, a lot of voter apathy, and disbelief that either party would bring about any significant change to our standing economically and internationally.

I don't know if Kerry's speaking style is a result of his strategy, or if it's just an innate flaw that can be fixed. Personally, for speeches, I preferred Dean and Edwards to Kerry--but I'm one of those who thinks Kerry's speeches aren't sleep-inducing, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe my standards are lowered from Bush's reign--Kerry can form complete sentences, and he is quick on his feet off the script, as the last few debates showed.

that not only hurt gore in losing some democratic/liberal support. but it also made it seem as if bush wasn't all that bad. so some people who voted on "who i want to have a beer with" voted for bush because of it. remember, bush at this time was running as a centrist or moderate, or at least as a different kind of republican. someone more inclusive. most of it was done to attract moderate white voters who are uncomfortable with many right wing republicans anti gay talk and appearing racist. and with people who were happy with the times and who often vote for the party in power, the no difference thing could have meant to them that bush would probably run things the same.

but as everyone can see now, that wasn't the case.

because he ignored the South, including his home state, completely.

Gore ran as a social liberal/fiscal conservative, or what used to be known as a Rockefeller Republican until the late 80s. He tried to appeal to the "soccer mom" and "office park dad" demographic, i.e. the 5% of the eligible electorate known quaintly as "swing voters".

Why do you think he got nailed at the debates for agreeing with Dubya? He was in favor of NAFTA, was open to partial privatization of Social Security, supported less regulation on big companies, and pretty much toed the "corporate-friendly" line on nearly every economic issue.

Compare that to Shrub, who ran as a social conservative/fiscal conservative. Now think about the South. Given the fact that both candidates were very similar on fiscal matters, it leaves only social policy as a difference between them. Voters who are fiscally liberal but socially conservative (the "Reagan Democrats", if you will) would certainly have more in common with a candidate who's socially conservative than one who's socially liberal. Hence, the Reagan Democrats vote for Bush because of his "family values" BS, since neither major candidate is standing up for their economic concerns.

Abandoning economic populism was one of the WORST things Democrats have done in the last two decades. We've always won handily on economic fairness, because most people in this country support it-- even if they don't have piles of money, like big oligopolic corporations to buy TV ads. When the Democrats moved decidedly to the right and became economic neoliberals, we lost one of our last bargaining chips with the working class.

And that's why less people now self-identify as Democrats, and why our numbers in elected office are nearing all-time lows.

Or is it Edwardsical? I never can remember. Point being, John Edwards was a regular Democrat, not ultra liberal but not ultra conservative. Yet his message of economic populism and the presentation had the same effect as a centrist campaign: he had support from the left and the center. If Kerry can manage to do that (which will be difficult in a polarized nation) I think he will win it.

Which makes obvious my Veep preference...

I guess there are a lot of people here who want a repeat of the 2002 elections.

Here's an easy, SCOTUS- and Florida-proof victory equation:

Gore 2000 voters + Nader 2000 voters = VICTORY in 2004.

Seriously, would ANYBODY who voted Gore in 2000 vote for Shrub this year? Highly unlikely.

This election is Kerry's to lose. He doesn't need to "appeal" to the moderates-- they're already on board. If he convinces even a fraction of the progressive/non-voting left to join him, it's his. Not too hard, huh? :D

And the folks who 'won' the elections in 2002 and 2000 were not liberal third part people, but Republicans--I don't see that as sufficient evidence to prove that a shift left would have won those elections. I personally believe it was foolish to simply offer no significant answer to Republican rhetoric on the 'terror' war, but I'm not prepared to say we would have won had we done so.

(this thread is increasingly turning into my admitting I have little concept of how elections are won and lost in this country--the history doesn't really paint a clear picture)

(First of all, full disclosure is in order-- I'm a political scientist by training, and have studied many elections-- as well as worked on several successful grassroots-oriented campaigns, most notably Paul Wellstone's first Senate run in 1990.)

the Democrats who lost in 2002 and 2000 were the ones who could not differentiate themselves from the Republicans-- most notably, the centrist candidates who received piles of cash from the DLC-dominated DNC, but had a message that was very similar to their Republican opponents'.

Many people seem to think that the Clinton presidency was good for the Democrats-- but if you look at the stats and the gains/losses by the Dems, you see that it was not good at all-- in fact, it was almost a disaster.

Clinton may have won two presidential elections, but the party lost control of both the US Senate AND US House (after controlling the House for 40 years!) and lost more governorships and local elections. In fact, the number of Democratic state legislators is at its lowest since 1964. Hardly a "success" for Democrats.

Additionally, voter apathy has increased. Barely 1/2 the eligible population voted in the 2000 election, because there was not much reason TO vote: the major candidates agreed more often than not, especially in debates, and nobody was talking about the issues that affect most Americans-- which are primarily the "bread and butter" issues like jobs, economic security, etc.

The more the party runs toward the center-- ESPECIALLY on economic issues-- the more it not only alienates the ultra-liberals, but the blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" as well. The culturally conservative working-class voters would prefer to vote for a candidate who'll stand up for their economic issues-- which has traditionally been the pro-labor Democratic Party.

But since the late 80s/early 90s, the party has forsaken its base among working people in an attempt to appeal to the suburbanite "swing voter". This means abandoning economic populism and taking up the "free trade"/neoliberal economic agenda of the Milton Friedman types, and highlighting their stances on divisive, hot-button social issues-- which plays right into the hands of the right-wing fearmongers, who have used this shift to their advantage.

Now, put yourself in the position of a "traditional" socially moderate-to-conservative, blue-collar voter: NONE of the major party candidates supports my economic issues, but at least the Republicans talk a good line about "family values". Guess who I'm gonna vote for?

The biggest blunder the Dems have made in the last two decades has been to forsake our traditional stands on fair trade, strong unions and workers rights for the corporate neo-liberalism of the so-called "New Democrats" (who actually sound a lot like the old Rockefeller Republicans). By abandoning this loyal base of voters, we've only made it more difficult for our candidates to win.

Hopefully it's not too late to appeal to the working-class voter who is pissed off that his job is going south/overseas/away. Bush and his wreckless economic policy have done most of the hard work for us on that already. We need to STAND UP for regular working people, and stick to our traditional, WINNING values.

This election is John Kerry's to lose. If he can't pull it off, you can safely blame the DLC/corporate-friendly branch of the party for pulling him rightward.

...any suggestions for how to let a candidate, i.e. Kerry, know how he is shooting himself in the foot on issues that are of importance to an area of the country? Letters are ignored. Friendly posts to his website get ignored. Posting your concerns along with his actual voting record on the issue, along with ratings from various political groups, gets you banned. :)

I have been convinced since 1994 that the reason the Democrats have gotten pounded lately is because we abandoned our economic populism of previous decades. If we can reclaim the high ground of economic fairness, we'll get those socially conservative "Reagan Democrats" back in a heartbeat.

You say you've tried to contact Kerry's campaign with your concerns? I know how difficult that can be-- believe me, I'm working on a campaign here in MN to get the DNC to pay attention to those of us who got (re-)involved in the party because of economics.

First thing is, don't attack them, or approach them in anger. Always be constructive, not confrontational. Don't demand anything, but suggest things and be cooperative.

Also, join up with any other activist Dems in your area, and contact Kerry as a group. One voice may be powerful, but many voices speaking as one are much more powerful. Try to locate your local party activists, or other progressive groups, and work with them. Petition everyone you know, and send those petitions to Kerry's campaign.

And don't forget to CALL the campaign office, too! Get everybody else to do this, as well, so that the campaign knows that average, run-of-the-mill people care about these issues.

I hope these tips work, as I can only offer them from experience. Here in Minnesota, we've used a very similar strategy with our other candidates and elected officials, and we've had some success so far. We've gotten a couple of our US Reps to sign on to Kucinich's Department of Peace bill, and now our senior Senator (Mark Dayton, a Democrat) is proposing a six-month withdrawal from Iraq.

As a matter of fact, Mark Dayton has been telling Kucitizens in this state to "light a fire under John Kerry", believe it or not!!! I've seen him say it to us, and he's been VERY helpful and encouraging to us. This is a pretty big deal, as Dayton was an early Kerry supporter!

Best of luck to you JayS, and feel free to PM me if you have any questions or need tips on strategy. :hi:

We started losing ground the very first time the word liberal was thrown pejoratively at a democrat and he blushed, stammered and then denied it. And then it just kept happening. Soon everyone thought that it was a dirty word. that is why we need to hang onto wackadoo and protect it from pukes.

The first campaign that I truly became involved in was for Dukakis in 1988. I helped organize two precincts and a 3,000-member college campus for him for the state caucuses. I truly believed his message of neoliberal economics and social liberalism were the key to beating Bush I-- i.e., I believed Dukakis to be "electable", even though his vision was not very coherant, or different from that of Reagan/Bush.

I remember when, in a debate, Dukakis was asked directly whether or not he was a liberal. His weasel-like semi-denial/acceptance did NOT win him major points with anybody-- conservative or liberal. It made him look afraid to be a Democrat, and to belong to the same tradition as JFK, FDR or even LBJ.

Plus, the fact that he tried to appear "strong on defense" by riding around in that tank was the straw that broke the camel's back. Dukakis was afraid of being "liberal", but he wasn't too convincing as anything else, either. IOW, he all but alienated the liberal base, had little appeal to the center, and had NO support on the right.

Unfortunately, I see a lot of Dukakis in Kerry: both are "northeastern liberals" with decent liberal pedigrees (even if they're more centrist now than the were, say, ten years ago), both are fiscally moderate to conservative, both are competant (if not inspiring) public speakers but don't offer much as far as a VISION of what they want America to be in ten years. And both men are afraid to own up to the term LIBERAL.

Yes, Kerry's made some motions toward it, but he has never said "Yes, I am a liberal" during his campaign-- he's always qualified his liberal label with statements like "if being a liberal means supporting/being against (insert issue here), then I guess I'm a liberal".

We Democrats need to show Kerry that "liberal" is not a dirty word-- most Americans do NOT hate the word, as much as right-wing hate radio would like us to believe it. We need to show him that it's okay to be an economic populist, and talk about the great things liberalism has brought about in this country.

I for one hope that John Kerry can come through for us, and will stand up to the right-wing fearmongers, and not adopt their language of divisiveness. He needs to put forth a POSITIVE, inclusive liberal message not based on hate, but based on hope. He's getting there, but we need to help him along nonetheless!

...and welcome to DU! :hi:

Dennis got no coverage. Kerry was considered the next best option by most of the Kucinich people.

I think he uses moderate language and tones while promoting fairly progressive and populist policies.

...elected.

That is what Dean did, and the corporate media turned on him soon after he said he'd break up the media.

press release as a Senate small business committee member and submitted a Senate resolution condemning the FCC decision a few months later. Shortly after, the media was declaring Kerry's candidacy dead and all the press was focusing on Dean who had a press plane as early as the end of June.

Dean's comment about the media in Dec.2003 was NOT deliberate, it was an off the cuff response to a question from Matthews on Hardball.

Big difference.

.

Spot on!

I won't mention who here started a thread putting a link to this one trying to get wackadoo votes!

The current results of this poll display how far right this particular discussion board has become.

29% for the correct choice, 69% for appealing to people that would consider voting for a bloody handed war criminal.


sorry,

TWL

Kerry needs to both entergize the Democratic base and at the same time be attractive to independent voters and moderate Republicans w ho are turned off by Bush's incompetence and ideological excesses. He also has to be acceptable to Corporate American who will sink his campeign in a heartbeat if they feel he's not going to serve their interessts.

Is this going to be easy--No.

He can do both.