This is a good read. It sums up in a nut shell why the Democrats are losing, or at least a few that stated comments in it seem to get it, and what avarage America thinks of them. The ones that don't get it would be ones I refer to as the far left. They won't ever fix the blue party until they fix the problems that have been stated in this topic.
Dem blues
By Roger Simon
How bad off is the Democratic Party? Well, the Democrats don't have the presidency, they don't have the Senate, and they don't have the House. And while a few men have been elbowing one another to get elected Democratic chairman on Saturday, that is largely a fundraising job. Just what the heart, soul--and future--of the party is seems very much an open question.
"I think we are in for a difficult period," says Bill Daley, Al Gore's campaign chairman in 2000. "Can we win in '08? Tell me what the economy will be like or what the war in Iraq will be like. I don't know. Do I see that the Democrats are on some grand march with programs and ideas that will motivate people? No."
"It is depressing losing elections, especially one in which so many things went well," says Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist. "We didn't get outspent; we did an extraordinary job organizing voters and increasing turnout. Fundamentally, the question Democrats face is: 'OK, if so many things were in place, why did we lose?' That is a tough question for a political party."
Says David Axelrod, a Democratic strategist who worked for John Edwards in the last presidential primary campaign, "The impression is that [the Republicans] have ideas and energy and we are trying to maintain the status quo. It was not clear in the last election what our vision was."
Even outgoing Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe says, "There is no question that we've got to do a better job on messaging."
Not much of which John Kerry believes. "The naysayers are completely out to lunch; they don't know what they are talking about," a vehement Kerry told U.S. News . "On every issue that speaks to the qualities of people's lives, we won and will continue to win."
But don't the Democrats have to change their message to win in 2008? "What is the Democratic Party going to do?" Kerry asked. "The Democratic Party stands for a proud set of principles and values. Service to country; service to community. Do we not want to stand for that?"
The debate over just what Democrats should stand for is reflected in the battle for Democratic National Committee chair. Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean has emerged as the odds-on favorite, but some wonder whether Dean's liberal reputation and fiery antiwar rhetoric might send just the wrong message.
Others say message isn't really the chief problem. Over and over again, critics say that Democrats have become tainted by a "cultural elitism," the sneering belief that "blue staters" are better educated, more sophisticated, and morally superior, compared with "red staters." "We do sneer at red staters," said Daley. "We convey that we are out of touch with the average person. We are truly a Washington, D.C.-focused party, and that includes unions, feminists, et cetera." Many also say that while Hollywood has been good for the Democratic Party in terms of contributing money, the Hollywood connection reinforces the notion that the Democrats are a condescending, leftist elite. So even though Axelrod believes that the party is fundamentally sound, he does say, "I don't discount that we should not be exclusionary and we should not project the cultural elitism that was radiated from Kerry. Would the right kind of candidate and right kind of candidacy have produced a different outcome? I supported Edwards. I think his message would have reached people in small towns and rural areas."
A narrow divide. Not surprisingly, Kerry doesn't buy it. To Kerry, the party did the right thing in 2004 and is doing the right thing now, and he lost his race to George W. Bush for one reason only. "In effect, in a narrowly divided country, it came down to 9/11," he says. "That is unique and unprecedented. We did an extraordinary job. And it augurs well for the future." In other words, since George W. Bush was re-elected to the presidency because of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and since George Bush cannot run again, this benefits the Democrats who run in 2008--including John Kerry. "I think that our party tapped very significantly into people's vision for the future," he says. "The Republicans didn't have a vision for the future. They are the ones that ought to be worrying."
Except they don't seem to be. At least not as much as the Democrats. And some Democrats are asking some very basic questions. Gilda Cobb-Hunter has been a member of the South Carolina state legislature for 13 years and is a member of the Democratic National Committee. She is an African-American, and she shocked some of the candidates for the DNC chairmanship recently. "I asked them what plans do you have to attract white, southern voters to the Democratic Party," she says. "I am not talking about NASCAR dads and Bubba--those votes are gone. I am talking about attracting young whites. And how do the Democrats keep young people of color, who are increasingly independent, in the party?" Cobb-Hunter says she did not get a satisfying answer from anybody. She also believes that Democratic candidates too often don't make a connection with ordinary voters. "In the last election, we couldn't explain things in a way that made sense to people," she says. "We got too fancy and stopped talking to people."
This is of great concern to the outgoing chairman of the party. While McAuliffe suffered some criticism after the losses of 2004, this has been replaced by widespread praise for what he accomplished as a party-builder: The party is out of debt, has raised $10 million since the last election, and can raise "$100 million this year at a touch of a button," McAuliffe says. So what does the party need? "We need to be going into the red states. We need to be going into their neighborhoods, talking about our Democratic values and what we stand for, and getting people comfortable with us," McAuliffe says. "We can't continue to allow Republicans to go in and distort our position on issues and scare people." Since the Democrats lack a clear leader and a clear path to the future, McAuliffe believes the party must fill the gap. "The next chair of the party has to begin to do message testing, message development in all 50 states. We need to start today," McAuliffe says. "We can't wait for a nominee in April of 2008 to say, 'OK, what's our message?' We don't have to wait for the nominee. By April 2008, we will know exactly what we have to do in order to win the presidential election."
But what if the nominee disagrees with the DNC-tested message? McAuliffe thinks that is unlikely to happen, because the nominee is going to want to win. "If we have done our job for four years of this testing and the polling and doing what we need to do, you're going to have a very good idea of what works and what doesn't," he says.
Prove it. That may not be as easy as it sounds. Bill Daley points out that Democrats have to get over certain hurdles that Republicans do not. "Sure, September 11 made it very hard to win this time," Daley says. "But Vietnam totally moved Democrats to a party that conveyed weakness, and we are still living with that. Since Vietnam, since the '60s, since Woodstock and all that, Democrats have had to convince people we are pro-American and pro-military and have values. The Democrats have an obligation to prove it, but it is a given for Republicans, even though they may have fewer values than Democrats."
There are other factors. It seems clear that while presidential candidates don't have to be warm and fuzzy, neither can they be cold and aloof. "People have got to feel comfortable with you," McAuliffe says. "They want to be able to say, 'You know, he's a nice guy.' " Or a nice woman, considering that one of the current front-runners for the 2008 nomination is Hillary Clinton (news - web sites). "In 2008 it is going to be Hillary and someone else [seriously fighting for the nomination]," Axelrod says. "The question is who the someone else will be." Edwards, Kerry's running mate, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), and Kerry are all seen as currently vying to be the "someone else." And while Kerry maintains it is too early to make that decision, he seems to a certain extent already to have made it. For starters, he has not grown a beard, gained 40 pounds, or retreated from the public eye.
"I look forward to going out and continuing this battle," he told U.S. News. "Our grass roots are very strong, and we are very optimistic. It is hogwash that we don't know what we stand for. We stand for children, not for tax cuts for the wealthy. Our values? Our values are not encouraging jobs to go overseas." Kerry also defends his campaign. "It was a hell of a good campaign," he says--and says the Democrats can go too far with their current introspection and navel gazing. "We have to reach out for folks, but not by changing into something else," he says.
Some, including Daley, believe that the Democrats will simply never win if they keep looking to Washington for their presidential candidates. Asked if that meant that in 2008, only governors need apply, Daley said, "Absolutely, for the time being. Or a senator or congressman who hasn't been there long and hasn't bought into the routine." Anita Dunn agrees: "History shows us governors get elected more easily than senators. We should look to people who have won in red states like Mark Warner [governor of Virginia] and Evan Bayh," formerly a two-term governor of Indiana. Other governors thought to be interested in 2008 include Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. Is it true Washington insiders can't win? "Personally, I thought George Bush was Washington-based, too," Kerry says dryly. "That's silly. We need to do a better job organizing more people, and we have to be smart about motivating our people to get out. This was not about some issue that we somehow failed to articulate and motivate to people."
So is he running in 2008?
"I want to continue the fight. Lots have said go run again. There is lots of positive feeling and energy. Folks are not discouraged," he says.
But wait, the Democrats haven't re-nominated a loser since Adlai Stevenson in 1956.
"I don't think anybody has tried ," Kerry says. "He was the last to try . Look at the facts."
Whichever way the Democrats end up viewing the last election and planning for the next one, Dunn has one piece of advice almost as old as the party itself. "We should not mourn," she says. "We should organize."
Dem blues
By Roger Simon
How bad off is the Democratic Party? Well, the Democrats don't have the presidency, they don't have the Senate, and they don't have the House. And while a few men have been elbowing one another to get elected Democratic chairman on Saturday, that is largely a fundraising job. Just what the heart, soul--and future--of the party is seems very much an open question.
"I think we are in for a difficult period," says Bill Daley, Al Gore's campaign chairman in 2000. "Can we win in '08? Tell me what the economy will be like or what the war in Iraq will be like. I don't know. Do I see that the Democrats are on some grand march with programs and ideas that will motivate people? No."
"It is depressing losing elections, especially one in which so many things went well," says Anita Dunn, a Democratic strategist. "We didn't get outspent; we did an extraordinary job organizing voters and increasing turnout. Fundamentally, the question Democrats face is: 'OK, if so many things were in place, why did we lose?' That is a tough question for a political party."
Says David Axelrod, a Democratic strategist who worked for John Edwards in the last presidential primary campaign, "The impression is that [the Republicans] have ideas and energy and we are trying to maintain the status quo. It was not clear in the last election what our vision was."
Even outgoing Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe says, "There is no question that we've got to do a better job on messaging."
Not much of which John Kerry believes. "The naysayers are completely out to lunch; they don't know what they are talking about," a vehement Kerry told U.S. News . "On every issue that speaks to the qualities of people's lives, we won and will continue to win."
But don't the Democrats have to change their message to win in 2008? "What is the Democratic Party going to do?" Kerry asked. "The Democratic Party stands for a proud set of principles and values. Service to country; service to community. Do we not want to stand for that?"
The debate over just what Democrats should stand for is reflected in the battle for Democratic National Committee chair. Former Vermont governor and presidential candidate Howard Dean has emerged as the odds-on favorite, but some wonder whether Dean's liberal reputation and fiery antiwar rhetoric might send just the wrong message.
Others say message isn't really the chief problem. Over and over again, critics say that Democrats have become tainted by a "cultural elitism," the sneering belief that "blue staters" are better educated, more sophisticated, and morally superior, compared with "red staters." "We do sneer at red staters," said Daley. "We convey that we are out of touch with the average person. We are truly a Washington, D.C.-focused party, and that includes unions, feminists, et cetera." Many also say that while Hollywood has been good for the Democratic Party in terms of contributing money, the Hollywood connection reinforces the notion that the Democrats are a condescending, leftist elite. So even though Axelrod believes that the party is fundamentally sound, he does say, "I don't discount that we should not be exclusionary and we should not project the cultural elitism that was radiated from Kerry. Would the right kind of candidate and right kind of candidacy have produced a different outcome? I supported Edwards. I think his message would have reached people in small towns and rural areas."
A narrow divide. Not surprisingly, Kerry doesn't buy it. To Kerry, the party did the right thing in 2004 and is doing the right thing now, and he lost his race to George W. Bush for one reason only. "In effect, in a narrowly divided country, it came down to 9/11," he says. "That is unique and unprecedented. We did an extraordinary job. And it augurs well for the future." In other words, since George W. Bush was re-elected to the presidency because of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and since George Bush cannot run again, this benefits the Democrats who run in 2008--including John Kerry. "I think that our party tapped very significantly into people's vision for the future," he says. "The Republicans didn't have a vision for the future. They are the ones that ought to be worrying."
Except they don't seem to be. At least not as much as the Democrats. And some Democrats are asking some very basic questions. Gilda Cobb-Hunter has been a member of the South Carolina state legislature for 13 years and is a member of the Democratic National Committee. She is an African-American, and she shocked some of the candidates for the DNC chairmanship recently. "I asked them what plans do you have to attract white, southern voters to the Democratic Party," she says. "I am not talking about NASCAR dads and Bubba--those votes are gone. I am talking about attracting young whites. And how do the Democrats keep young people of color, who are increasingly independent, in the party?" Cobb-Hunter says she did not get a satisfying answer from anybody. She also believes that Democratic candidates too often don't make a connection with ordinary voters. "In the last election, we couldn't explain things in a way that made sense to people," she says. "We got too fancy and stopped talking to people."
This is of great concern to the outgoing chairman of the party. While McAuliffe suffered some criticism after the losses of 2004, this has been replaced by widespread praise for what he accomplished as a party-builder: The party is out of debt, has raised $10 million since the last election, and can raise "$100 million this year at a touch of a button," McAuliffe says. So what does the party need? "We need to be going into the red states. We need to be going into their neighborhoods, talking about our Democratic values and what we stand for, and getting people comfortable with us," McAuliffe says. "We can't continue to allow Republicans to go in and distort our position on issues and scare people." Since the Democrats lack a clear leader and a clear path to the future, McAuliffe believes the party must fill the gap. "The next chair of the party has to begin to do message testing, message development in all 50 states. We need to start today," McAuliffe says. "We can't wait for a nominee in April of 2008 to say, 'OK, what's our message?' We don't have to wait for the nominee. By April 2008, we will know exactly what we have to do in order to win the presidential election."
But what if the nominee disagrees with the DNC-tested message? McAuliffe thinks that is unlikely to happen, because the nominee is going to want to win. "If we have done our job for four years of this testing and the polling and doing what we need to do, you're going to have a very good idea of what works and what doesn't," he says.
Prove it. That may not be as easy as it sounds. Bill Daley points out that Democrats have to get over certain hurdles that Republicans do not. "Sure, September 11 made it very hard to win this time," Daley says. "But Vietnam totally moved Democrats to a party that conveyed weakness, and we are still living with that. Since Vietnam, since the '60s, since Woodstock and all that, Democrats have had to convince people we are pro-American and pro-military and have values. The Democrats have an obligation to prove it, but it is a given for Republicans, even though they may have fewer values than Democrats."
There are other factors. It seems clear that while presidential candidates don't have to be warm and fuzzy, neither can they be cold and aloof. "People have got to feel comfortable with you," McAuliffe says. "They want to be able to say, 'You know, he's a nice guy.' " Or a nice woman, considering that one of the current front-runners for the 2008 nomination is Hillary Clinton (news - web sites). "In 2008 it is going to be Hillary and someone else [seriously fighting for the nomination]," Axelrod says. "The question is who the someone else will be." Edwards, Kerry's running mate, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), and Kerry are all seen as currently vying to be the "someone else." And while Kerry maintains it is too early to make that decision, he seems to a certain extent already to have made it. For starters, he has not grown a beard, gained 40 pounds, or retreated from the public eye.
"I look forward to going out and continuing this battle," he told U.S. News. "Our grass roots are very strong, and we are very optimistic. It is hogwash that we don't know what we stand for. We stand for children, not for tax cuts for the wealthy. Our values? Our values are not encouraging jobs to go overseas." Kerry also defends his campaign. "It was a hell of a good campaign," he says--and says the Democrats can go too far with their current introspection and navel gazing. "We have to reach out for folks, but not by changing into something else," he says.
Some, including Daley, believe that the Democrats will simply never win if they keep looking to Washington for their presidential candidates. Asked if that meant that in 2008, only governors need apply, Daley said, "Absolutely, for the time being. Or a senator or congressman who hasn't been there long and hasn't bought into the routine." Anita Dunn agrees: "History shows us governors get elected more easily than senators. We should look to people who have won in red states like Mark Warner [governor of Virginia] and Evan Bayh," formerly a two-term governor of Indiana. Other governors thought to be interested in 2008 include Tom Vilsack of Iowa, Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Phil Bredesen of Tennessee. Is it true Washington insiders can't win? "Personally, I thought George Bush was Washington-based, too," Kerry says dryly. "That's silly. We need to do a better job organizing more people, and we have to be smart about motivating our people to get out. This was not about some issue that we somehow failed to articulate and motivate to people."
So is he running in 2008?
"I want to continue the fight. Lots have said go run again. There is lots of positive feeling and energy. Folks are not discouraged," he says.
But wait, the Democrats haven't re-nominated a loser since Adlai Stevenson in 1956.
"I don't think anybody has tried ," Kerry says. "He was the last to try . Look at the facts."
Whichever way the Democrats end up viewing the last election and planning for the next one, Dunn has one piece of advice almost as old as the party itself. "We should not mourn," she says. "We should organize."
