Progressive candidates can beat almost any Rethug in the general and any DLC'er in a primary.

1. PAINT THEIR RETHUG OPPONENT AS A PRO-OUTSOURCE YOUR JOB TO CHINA/INDIA "FREE" TRADER.

And do the same with their DLC/SerfDem opponent in a Dem primary.

Relentlessly run TV and internet ads that paint their opponent as the Pro-Free Trader.

The voters are ready to lynch Pro-Free Traders.

Modern humans like to refer to this public-wide hatred of "Free Trade" as POPULISM.

When Democrats appeal to populism, Democrats win.

Of course, progressive candidates also must make the repeal/reform of "Free Trade" and reform of our reimportation laws a main campaign theme.

Imagine a progressive cand's commercial stating the following..

If elected, I will fight and push for the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT and bring our jobs back home.

Hearing that would stop most voters in their tracks and get them thinkin.

Of course, this requires organization and fundraising but that's a necessity regardless of campaign strategy.

Progressives that reach out to populist anger win elections in all but the reddest of states.

Simple, eh?

Haven't Progressives been on the anti-free trade wagon since 1994?

run on an anti-FT platform.

I'd like to see more politicians in favor of Fair Trade though.

Bryant

so please be specific, what's stupid about being anti-FT?

Our FT policies have flattened our economy and are killing the middle class. We've lost more than 30 million jobs because of FT.

FT has driven more people into poverty than any other policy decision in American history.

Being Anti Free Trade is stupid because Free Trade has plenty of benefits as well as the negatives you mentioned and others besides. Plus rhetorically it puts you in a box - unless you are in favor of isolationism.

Being Pro Fair Trade retains the benefits of Free Trade while regulating to avoid some of the problems you mention.

Bryant

I do believe that was part of President Perot's winning message too, no? :shrug:

Brilliant Plan! :woohoo:

Sometime early in '08 primary season, during a conversation with a close life long friend whom I hadn't seen in awhile, I asked "So who are you supporting in the primary?". She answered. Obama, you?
I said the same.

I asked her what drew her support toward Obama?

Her answer..

She had recently watched a debate with all the Dems on stage. Obama commented that our Free Trade policies were a mistake and in much need of reform and that if elected it would be a front burner issue.

She was so impressed by that comment that she, a Hillary supporter, became an Obama supporter.

I'll never forget that convo. To me that's powerful stuff.

Obama didn't have alot of friends in the national media until he won the Dem nom. He used grass roots and internet organizing to overcome his media underdog status.

Just sayin. Media should never discourage a progressive candidate. Obama campaigned as a quasi-progressive. Obama never would have been elected if he let media discourage him, no?

But as pointed out, once you're in the office, you're subject to TPTB as your boss, not us.

TPTB don't care if you aren't working and starve, or if what they are making and selling comes out of child sweatshops.

ummmm- how do you propose to pay for all that 'relentless' television air time...? :shrug:

anti-Bush populist outrage and made "change" his campaign theme. He used the internet with brilliant precision. He raised funds from populist outrage.

For crissakes, did anyone learn from him in '08? How to fundraise I mean.

who do you propose as the person that's going to rally/focus that 'populist rage' into actual donations? and how are you going to pay for the airtime to get the initial message out?

Send your money to Act Blue earmarked for the Progressive candidates of your choice. It takes money to run those ads.

The corporations spend their money on campaigns and politicians. We have to do the same. If we use national organizations who support our agenda we can turn millions of small donations into a huge Progressive effect.

Even those who can only send a few dollars will make a difference.

One of "their" candidates is Dianne Fienstein. They have to do better than that if they're going to get my support.

Progressive candidates that you can select to donate to. I have been impressed with Act Blue's work, but they are not perfect--just better than DCCC or DLC, IMO.

Act Blue is emerging as a very important prog organzing tool.

I love the fact that a person can donate $1 or any amount above that.

Peace.

:fistbump:

i'm disabled, and my wife is unemployed.

my point, however is that the poster doesn't seem to understand is that it takes money to raise money, and the dnc's money is going to go to it's like-minded and incumbent candidates, giving them HUGH financial advantages from the get-go.

it really isn't 'just as simple as a,b,c...'

money is a key element of campaigning; however, every campaign and every Progressive organization needs help with other things that you and your wife may be able to help with. During the Obama campaign I had to settle for being a phone banker and data-entry guy because my bad ankle keeps me from doing the door-to-door work. Still, it was very satisfying to be able to contribute.

You are correct that the DNC, DCCC, and DLC are going to channel their dollars to the same corporate supporters who are causing the problems now. That's why those of us who can send $$ have to be very careful about where we send it.

who care a fuck of a lot more about conservative religious "values" like abortion than about FT?

No, evidently you can't grasp that.

I know full well life in rural fundie, ultra-conservative America.

Everyone I know, whether it's a small town fundie, or a big city hipster, or anyone in between HATES FT.

Not saying that everyone of them would vote based only on their view of FT, but many would.

Jobs will be the leading issue that brings voters to the polls in November. FT reform is a winner that capitalizes on anti-FT populist outrage.

That outrage all accross America is sky-fucking high.

Smart candidates grasp populist outrage. When they do, they win elections.

In places like NE, OK and MS, "godless liberals" don't stand a chance. And there's ample evidence of that in voting patterns and the issues that people say are important to them. You overestimate the voting populace.

They aren't necessarily the same person.

DLCers are lifestyle liberals and economic conservatives.

Rahm and his ilk have always makde the claim that a progressive could not be elected in red states. That's because he doesn't want a progressive congress. And Democrats have assumed that to be true.

I am in a red state right now, and the people care far more about economic issues than anything else. Many of the people I have met here are working class people with families to raise. Many are religious, but not fundies. Abortion is a minor issue for them right now, even if they are against it but jobs and being able to take care of the families is the #1 issue people talk about.

However, people have been indoctrinated by Fox and rightwing talk radio, so there is the 'Democrat bad, Republican good' kind of thinking. But even that is diminishing since because of the disillusionment with Bush especially on the economy.

I think a progressive thinker running as an Independent would have a good chance of beating a Republican if they focus on basic issues like jobs and ending wars, people are fed up with the money being wasted on wars.

It's definitely not impossible, it would take people with a lot of drive, tough, but in touch with the needs of the people.

Don't listen to the same old 'it's impossible' nonsense. Nothing is impossible for people who set their minds to it ~ I like your positive thinking ~

You have vision and an ability to look forward.

Your reply nailed it.

Peace

:fistbump:

that's why no one shops at Walmart. :sarcasm:

don't think about how all that stuff got to be so cheap. But I have yet to meet someone who, once they learn a little about it all, will continue to shop anywhere that threatens their own livlihoods. Why do you think there are no discussions on our corporate media about all of this? I think it's because THEY have more faith in the intelligence of the American people than you do. They KNOW that an informed public is a threat to those whose only goal is profit whether they are selling wars or plasma tvs.

That's what the internet was supposed to do, wasn't it? Take the place of the MSM to provide information to people. And here we have people using it to discourage people from taking any action at all. Just keep saying 'it's impossible' or as in your case, attach a little sarcasm tag as you try to dampen the enthusiasm of someone who actually wants to change things and has enough faith in human nature to believe it's possible.

One thing is for sure and imho, the reason why people 'shop at Walmart', apathy will get us nowhere, the attitude that any changes for good are 'impossible' and a refusal to even look for ways to succeed, all that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is of course what the Walmarts of the world want.

I'm with the OP, anything is possible when people set their minds to it and get out of the rut they've been lulled into for so long.

in most places. It's not a secret that Walmart sells a lot of stuff made in China, but many people, knowing this, will still choose to spend less on an item if possible. It's easy for people to understand that if they spend less on stuff, they have more money. It's more difficult to convince them that they are going to lose their job because they don't buy American.

You are right that a lot of people don't look at the larger implications of their spending habits, but that's EXACTLY why anti-free trade isn't a "can't miss" issue.

your case as 'anti-free trade' would not work. That is why it is important to present things in a way that people can relate to. Just the use of words like 'anti' can tune people out.

But asking questions and getting them to think and supply some of the answers themselves is a better way to get a point across. Questions like 'Are they are happy about American jobs going overseas eg' the answer to which is pretty well known. I think most people can grasp eg, the difference between fair trade and free trade. And maybe not everyone, but a lot of people would not like to know that they are supporting child labor in many cases when they buy products made in countries that do not have protections against such practices.

Maybe I'm too optimistic or have too much faith in the basic goodness of a majority of the people, but I do believe that some of the reasons for people blindly going to Walmart eg have to do with simply not realizing what it takes to produce such cheap products.

Challenging people to buy products made in America is also something people in red states can relate to.

Who could refuse to do such a 'patriotic' thing? Basically I believe that knowledge is power and that too often Democrats don't bother to inform people assuming, wrongly imo, that they cannot be informed. In many ways, a good politician is a teacher and a good teacher can at least get people to think for themselves.

I'll be waiting to see a 100% Progressive Democratic Caucus in the 112th Caucus.

:eyes:

in '10 and another five in '12, we'll be moving in the right direction.

Your sarcasm about a 100% Progressive caucus in the 112th Congress is defeatism at its finest. But then, what else should we expect from someone who has a photo on his profile of Rahm Emanuel giving somebody the Bronx cheer.

and Rahm the fake "democrat" will work overtime to ensure that any true progressive is earmarked for defeat. Only conservadems are corrupt enough to go along with his agenda.

Are you rich? Or are you a corporate CEO?

despite the insurance agents' derision and scorn of voters.

...are going to find themselves unemployed after Tuesday,
November 2nd. The Democrats left in Congress *WILL* be a
lot more progressive than the batch of self-agrandizers
that you support.

And good riddance to them and you!

Tesha

would have you think that most americans are stupid enough to return the evil rethugs to power.

this must be an even better idea than I, at first, thought.

:kick: & R

pathetic attack and remarkably stupid one at that.

You say some of the most vicious things I have ever seen on DU.

What is wrong with you?

After all, you have established through your long record that the fates of millions is irrelevant so long as you are not inconvenienced or asked to give up your privilege.

All Hail our Corporate Overlords!
:rofl:

And I'd bet almost anything I live a more "non-corporate" life than YOU ever will, honeypie.

You love to l-- your little ass off. It's all one can expect from the likes of little old you.

The Rs have won for years with faux-populism. Progressives can win in "conservative" districts with the real thing.

What will not win, by the way, is what I've sometimes seen described as "lifestyle liberalism". Vague invocations of peace and multiculturalism don't cut it. "Why are we spending billions on war we need to be spending over here?" works. So too does "the corporations got their buddy in congress over there to pass the laws that let your former job move to <insert Latin American country here> where the company stole Pedro's land and business and forced him north to find some way to feed his kids. This congressman from Evil Corp. here is telling you the problem is illegal immigrants. I say the problem is him and his buddies who created this mess for both you and Pedro, and you'd be crazy to vote for even more problems for the both of you".

My faith that progressives can win anywhere, so long as it is progressivism grounded in real people's needs, is based not on mere wishful thinking. I've seen offices swing from far right to far left (and I do mean as far left as the American political spectrum allows) in "hopelessly conservative" areas, with the right candidate.

disgraced all that is good about America. FT in it's current form that is. I'm for heavily regulated trade with strong government oversight. Currently that notion is a foreign concept.

Are you really trying to defend America giving away our manu/tech/IT sectors?

Have you lost your job due to NAFTA? I have, twice.

I'm guessing you haven't.

I agree with your premise that a populist Democrat will beat any other kind of candidate, but I don't agree with some of your other premises during the thread. For example, your statements about Obama, considering the unfolding corporate-lobbyist-takeover of the entire Federal Government, is laughable and offensive, increasingly, as each new "corporate contract" comes along, painted as "brave historical change." Obama did not win because of "populist outrage," (reply #11); anyone who seemed remotely sane, honest, and competent--and NOT BUSH--would have won. The anti-Bush/Cheney hate was not "populist," it was a general revulsion particularly against them/Republicans/many of the crimes revealed. The idea that Obama ever seemed like a "populist" or "progressive" is laughable, (or "cry-able" more like it). The only populist/progressive, anti-corporate candidate was Dennis Kucinich, who was undercut, sabotaged, and treated with contempt by the "higher-ups" from the start. Obama "I believe in the free market"/"I admire Ronald Reagan" (which makes me want to vomit every time I think of it), always seemed like "Slick Willie" Obama to me, and never even slightly like a populist/anti-corporate.

As for "using the internet with brilliant precision," whatever that means (same post), do you not recall that it was DNC chair Howard Dean who built the entire modern structure--from Nationwide staffs and offices (actually a return to the pre-Clinton past) to internet voter contacts and volunteer/activist training--then was kicked in the teeth by "Rahm Obama" who then stole credit for it all. Howard Dean converted the emphasis--for good and for bad--to the internet.

During reply #8, you mention that Obama changed the mind of a Hillary Clinton supporter. This is because Obama lied, claiming to be against NAFTA, attacking Hillary Clinton for "supporting" it (which she never did, as Carl Bernstein reported), then stabbed everybody in the back with NAFTA/CAFTA, etc., extensions ever since. Yes, people hate"free" trade (free capital-investment movement is all it is), and the answer is not, as propagandists always claim, "isolationism," "no" trade--it is a return to old-fashioned, individually negotiated trade agreements with each country, "Most Favored Nation" status, deals tied to human rights, pollution clean-up etc., as before. (Of course, you knew that; that was not your claim, but some of the other replies.)

It is also not true (OP) that people are not populists in "the reddest of States." People can be made to get very educated and angry by concentrating the attack on a strictly anti-corporate, anti-corporate-crimes-and-abuses theme, on outsourcing, job cuts, pay cuts, hours increased with no pay increase, price gouging, cheaply made with price increases--all the things everybody, especially the middle class and poor, suffer every day. Just don't tie it to a "political opinion." Keep it anti-corporate exclusively; everyone agrees on this and can be made to unite on a common cause. This was largely how Roosevelt did it--keep it specifically targeted and practical; not theoretical. This would start to split people again on opinions. "Conservatives" hate what corporations are doing, too--in the real world, not the "consultant" world.

Is a fraction of the number of voters who shop at Wal-Mart.

:yourock: