Winning the middle class back

May 8, 2006 8:46 PM

What the Democrats have to doto win back the American middle class. (PDF file recommended by Democrat Martin Frost, who served in the US House of Representatives from 1979 to 2005.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste (144 comments total)

what middle class?
posted by twjordan at 8:57 PM on May 8, 2006

Yes, it's time to play another round of the beltway's favorite parlor game...

What's Wrong With the Democrats?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 9:01 PM on May 8, 2006

Very astute. I particularly agree that the addiction to pessimism and bad news is the main feature of contemporary liberalism that turns people off. Most of my fellow liberal friends are constantly going on about how "It's all going to hell in a handbasket". There's only so much of that tune people are willing to listen to.
posted by slatternus at 9:01 PM on May 8, 2006

the-thrid-way.com? As in Tony Blair's "third way"? Fuck that.

Anyway, everyone has an opinion about what the democrats "need to do" but if conventional wisdom is any guide the democrats are as likely to take back the house and senate five months from today as bush was to invade Iraq six months before March of 2003.

And why would anyone want to listen to what a republican has to say about what the democrats need to do?
posted by delmoi at 9:06 PM on May 8, 2006

Very astute. I particularly agree that the addiction to pessimism and bad news is the main feature of contemporary liberalism that turns people off. Most of my fellow liberal friends are constantly going on about how "It's all going to hell in a handbasket". There's only so much of that tune people are willing to listen to.

Well, what if it really was going to hell in a handbasket? Should we just ignore it, or what?
posted by delmoi at 9:09 PM on May 8, 2006

slatternus, as someone who watched conservatives whip themselves into a livid froth during the 90's, shouting to anyone who would listen that Clinton was destroying America and that our entire nation would slide into oblivion because those slack-off hedonist poseurs were in power, I can't take that criticism too seriously.

Perhaps it's more accurate to say that 'pessimism motivates the base, but rarely attracts others' -- regardless of the party.
posted by verb at 9:10 PM on May 8, 2006

Well, that's that everyone. Delmoi has officially ordered this thread closed. Please return to your homes.
posted by slatternus at 9:10 PM on May 8, 2006

Between you Steven and Mr. Frost, gosh I don't know what to believe. Good to see you doing the Lord's work again, Steven. We missed ya! Amen.
posted by filchyboy at 9:24 PM on May 8, 2006

From the article:

Among white voters in this income range—who represent one-third of the voting population and three-fourths of the middle-class—Kerry lost by 22-points, and congressional Democrats lost by 19-points.

Wow, a whole third?

but, check this out:

In 2000, when national security was a “B-list” issue, congressional Democrats still lost the middle-class by 1-point, and Al Gore lost the middle-class by 2-points. Among white middle-class voters, Gore lost by 15-points, and congressional Democrats lost by 14-points.

So, if the white middle class voted 43/57 for Gore, and that they represent 75% of the the total middle class, which overall voted 49/51 for Gore, that means the non-white middle class voted for gore by 67%.

It's not a bad idea to get as many people to vote for your as possible, but lets be realistic; This is not as big of a problem as they make it out to be. A 15 point margin in 1/3rd of the population translates to a 5% margin at the polls, one that's already balanced out by middle-class minority voters, according to the articles own numbers.
posted by delmoi at 9:24 PM on May 8, 2006

I'm a former Republican and can't really bring myself to turn to the other dark side because in no way do I think they have my interests at heart.

Man, I am the middle class and both parties leave me cold.
posted by codswallop at 9:29 PM on May 8, 2006

codswallop: what made you leave the republican party?
posted by delmoi at 9:35 PM on May 8, 2006

All I know is you'd have to be either an idiot or rich to vote Republican in the next couple of elections and it helps if you're both.
posted by fenriq at 9:37 PM on May 8, 2006

Here's another example of the bogosity of the article:

_{“What does it mean in America today when Dave McCune, a steelworker I
met in Canton, Ohio, saw his job sent overseas and the equipment in hisfactory literally unbolted, crated up, and shipped thousands of miles awayalong with that job?...”— John Kerry, 2004}

But this is not how most Americans feel. Despite vacillating views about the state of our economy at a given point in time, Americans are consistently optimistic about their own personal circumstances:

* 78% of Americans say they are doing “fairly well” financially, including 56% of
households with annual incomes of less than $20,000.

The problem is there's no A to B. The statements seem contradictory, but that doesn't mean a statement won't resonate with a voter if they hear it.

There are also thousands and thousands of polls done, the only valid way to analyze them is to look at all the polls, figure out which ones mean what as far as economic optimism and go from there.

And let's not forget poll wording. How many people would say yes to the question "are you worried about your financial future"? How many people would say yes if you told them a story about some recent economic problems facing the country?

It doesn't matter how many people answer 'yes' to a question, what matters is how many change their answer after hearing your message.
posted by delmoi at 9:44 PM on May 8, 2006

What do they have to do?

Stop being hacks, better yet just go away. Even tumble weed would be doing a better job.
posted by 517 at 9:48 PM on May 8, 2006

can't really bring myself to turn to the other dark side because in no way do I think they have my interests at heart

Man, I mean this in all honesty -- wtf are your interests? Are you obscenely wealthy? Enough so that wars, a degraded environment, eroded civil rights and a damaged economy have no effect on you? Cause if you are, then ok, I can understand you not wanting to have that fortune taxed away.
posted by dreamsign at 9:51 PM on May 8, 2006

Jesus delmoi, what's your problem?

Well, what if it really was going to hell in a handbasket? Should we just ignore it, or what?

Did you read the PDF? It's not about changing goals, but about changing the message. Never did they say that Democrats should ignore any problems, just pitch their solutions in a different way. This is a perfect example of what they teach you in a business writing course.

It's not a bad idea to get as many people to vote for your as possible, but lets be realistic; This is not as big of a problem as they make it out to be. A 15 point margin in 1/3rd of the population translates to a 5% margin at the polls, one that's already balanced out by middle-class minority voters, according to the articles own numbers.

What was the margin in Florida in 2000? How about Ohio in 2004? Did you read the section about changing Hispanic voter patterns?

And why would anyone want to listen to what a republican has to say about what the democrats need to do?

I assume you're referring to Steven C. Den Beste

Maybe he's part of that 5% you sneer at, and this message appeals to him.
posted by sbutler at 9:58 PM on May 8, 2006

Sounds like Bill Clinton's campaign. That is what made him so popular, he focused on the positive. He could identify and criticize problems in society that Republican policies exacerbated, yet his overall message was very positive.
posted by caddis at 10:05 PM on May 8, 2006

So, if the white middle class voted 43/57 for Gore, and that they represent 75% of the the total middle class, which overall voted 49/51 for Gore, that means the non-white middle class voted for gore by 67%.

I actually sort of wish the Democrats would drop the white male middle class entirely. By pandering only to women, minorities, and to some extent the working class, Dems could win without the ridiculous hunting photo ops or pretending to look strong on national security.
posted by maxreax at 10:11 PM on May 8, 2006

Shorter 'Third Way': sell out your base, and come up with re-gilded bullshit for those who believed Bush's bullshit. If you want to see how that turns out, look across the pond.
posted by holgate at 10:12 PM on May 8, 2006

A lot of Democratic activists (which is not to say Democrats) are, quite frankly, downers.
The campaigners I meet always strike me as the kind of people you don't invite to a dinner party, because just know they're going to get up on a high horse about something and start arguing with the guests.


It makes sense to try to shed that image.
posted by madajb at 10:19 PM on May 8, 2006

codswallop nailed it.
posted by geekyguy at 10:24 PM on May 8, 2006

Yeah, the democrats need to be more positive! Look to the republicans for guidance.

Now, what is that Republican message again?


THE TERRORISTS ARE GOING TO KILL YOU ALL IF YOU DON'T VOTE FOR US

Somehow, I don't think pessimism is the problem.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 10:24 PM on May 8, 2006

The politics of "New Democrat" triangulation, which is essentially what this article is getting at, are old, busted, and are exactly the sort of calculating, phony-assed bullshit that have gotten us in the situation we're in. Bill Clinton won the presidency, but he and his DLC asshole-buddies sold the Democratic Party down the river to do it.

Americans don't want a triangulated jackass from the Democratic Party, nor do they particularly care if there's some amount of "pessimism" (read acknowledging reality) in the message. They just want a candidate who isn't a gladhanding lying sleazebag who will take any damned position to go with the wind of the moment.

If the Dems would stop focusing on "electability" (since it appears they don't understand what the word means) and start focusing on CREDIBILITY, combined with some TESTICULAR FORTITUDE, they'd do dandy for years to come.

Unfortunately, they're hamstringed by their own corruption and system of internal party patronage, and will nominate a party mover, not a voter motivator.

And that's why the Democratic Party is dying.
posted by stenseng at 10:25 PM on May 8, 2006

I don't trust that. Don't trust the Fox News bit at all. I mean, did anybody think they'd say "Democrats' Message Hits the Mark"?

I also don't trust this hocus-pocus "what do people think" stuff.

A lot of people can see that things aren't going so great. Jobs are hard to find, wages are stagnant, health-care is rapacious, Iraq is a disaster, the debt is out of control, our government is being run in secret, we're threatening Iran with nukes.

Bush currently has a 31% approval rating. There's a reason for that.

The big money assholes are the ones who are fucking it all up, and it's about time somebody said it.

We need leaders. Leaders speak the truth. Leaders "lead" the way.

Bush is no leader. He's a usurper, and there's a difference.
posted by rougy at 10:26 PM on May 8, 2006

I dunno. The republicans seem to be doing pretty well with their attempts to panic everyone into thinking that terrorists are going to sneak in their house at night and kill their children. People are so totally out of touch that despite drunk driving killing more people each year than terrorists did on 9/11, they're willing to elect a known drunk driver to take their rights away to fight those terrorists.

I think the message that 'Omigod the republicans are evil and going to enslave you in a police state and rape mother earth' could do very well. Personally, I don't think the democrats were nearly negative enough in the last election; they should have very loudly ran Bush down at every opportunity. There's more than enough things he's done that it could all be truthful and still work perfectly.
posted by Mitrovarr at 10:31 PM on May 8, 2006

George Bush Jr. is way more charming then Gore and Kerry combined.

Clinton was far more charming then Dole. He was somewhat more charming then George Bush (because we didn't know Clinton yet).

George Bush was more charming then Dukakis.

And on and on, since television was invented.

The country is split 50/50, just about when it comes to issues.

What the Dems need is a more charming candidate.
posted by cell divide at 10:32 PM on May 8, 2006

"What the Dems need is a more charming candidate."

That begs the question, "Is that what our country needs?"
posted by rougy at 10:38 PM on May 8, 2006

And this same situation exists on the state and local levels within the Democratic Party, at least in the so-called red states. In these places, Democratic Party activism equates to insular, incestuous little party tea-circles in which the faithful preach to the choir ad-infinitum and gladhand eachother while doing as little for (or with) their actual potential constituents out in the world, as is possible.

The problem with the Democratic Party is really that there is an insular and exclusive power structure of "movers and shakers" many of whom are adherents to DLC style centrism, but most of whom, New Democrat philosophy or no, have become so fixated upon the notion of "winning" that they are more than willing to throw out all of the principles and notions that they ostensibly were fighting for in the first place.

This is true of both parties of course, but is a more recent development coming from the Dems.

However, if I were to take the truly protracted view (and I will, as it's probably the only view with some hope at the end of the tunnel) what we're really witnessing, is the natural evolution of American politics brought about by an ever increasing and diverse population, coupled with the ability to organize, communicate, and campaign without the need for massive partisan organizations.

Essentially, I think America is outgrowing two party politics, and that's probably a good thing, especially since the two parties seem to be engaged in a headlong rush to the bottom of a pit of corruption, cronyism, special interest pandery, and corporate patronage that leaves the parties substantively near identical.

We're left with competitive branding techniques that camouflage and place in contention two virtually identical plans for the American society, wrapped in different messages to spin a future of "Welcome to McDonalds, can I take your order?"

Vote Coke/Pepsi '08
posted by stenseng at 10:42 PM on May 8, 2006

What others have said. In light of the Fukuyama FPP, "third way" was very succesful in the 1990's when people in England and America had growing middle class prosperity and no war, if not a sense that major world conflicts were a thing of the past. It's not in itself a bad idea, but it's also not really an idea--"Hey guys, let's smile a lot and be photogenic and avoid that nasty 'political' stuff,' at least while we're on camera." Moderation is hardly a new idea, and with Bush and Republicans tanking hard right now, there's a lot of "help" coming from them as to how the Dems should conduct themselves. For November's state-wide elections, however, the "stop-sign" strategy will be enough--stop screwing the economy, stop getting American kids killed in a place many Americans can't find on a map in the first place, stop getting involved in Abramoff-Cunningham-Delay-type scandals, stop embarassing if not ruining our country.

2008, there's the rub--but short of the Constitution being amended so that Bill Clinton could run again (he'd win in a land-slide), the "third way" is just boilerplate. It's hard, but not impossible, to come up with a platform to excite the base (4th Amendment rights re: illegal wiretapping and spying, PATRIOT, a time-table for Iraqi withdrawal, a SCOTUS not filled with so-called conservative judges that want to trample state- and local governance) and Reagan- and Bush-Democrats and Indpendents (a feasible energy policy, over-hauling medicine so that Americans can competitively shop for their meds elsewhere, taking all that wasted Iraq money and putting it into sensible port- and border-protection). (Actually, I think privacy and states' rights issues would really play well with the latter groups as well.)

"Third way" is a cop-out. The Democrats need to try and win in all 50 states, and in all counties whether Red or Blue. It won't happen, but it would be a much better guiding philosophy--don't concede anything, any race. A POTUS in the low 30's for years, not months, doesn't happen all that often. Call it "third-way" if you want, but I think the packaging could be a lot more enticing.
posted by bardic at 10:45 PM on May 8, 2006

Ah! At last! Some optimism!
posted by rougy at 10:47 PM on May 8, 2006

And this "appeal to the middle-class" shit is bogus. Both parties have supported policy that has severely undermined and "shrunk" the once populous American middle class.

Globalist economic policy is a lot like one of those crappy B-action movies where rich people hunt poor people for sport.

The only difference between establisment Dems and the GOP is that the Dems give you a map, a fresh pair of running shoes, and a five minute head-start before they release the hounds.
posted by stenseng at 10:49 PM on May 8, 2006

The one thing - the absolute one thing that the Democrats absolutely must do - is get a better grip on the media.
posted by rougy at 10:53 PM on May 8, 2006

That means, to me, it's time to take off the gloves.
posted by rougy at 10:53 PM on May 8, 2006

If you call jumping out of a burning, fuel-drenched ship into a sinking one optimism, then yeah. Whoever wins 2008 will have a majorly blown budget and a worse situation in Iraq. The cynic in me really hopes for major Dem gains in Congress, but let the Republicans have another POTUS to deal with the flaming bag of doggie poop that is America 2001-2008. That said, Bush has set the bar so low that whoever comes next, Republican or Democrat, will probably be gifted with a 50+ approval if they don't majorly screw anything up, in all sincerity. And I agree with some of what stenseng said, but I'm more optimistic on the local and state level--people in the reddest of states are more pissed off at Congress than they are at Bush. The Dems would be stupid not to pay close attention to what works and what doesn't (and who does and who doesn't) come November, and take their cues from there, as opposed to the typical "top down" approach of the high paid "professional" campaign managers in DC.

I realize Moulitsas gets a lot of crap here and elsewhere, but I recommend his book. If it's the only good thing that ever comes out of DKOS, that's fine by me.
posted by bardic at 10:55 PM on May 8, 2006

The Dems could easily win by running a positive campaign based on a series of value propositions, backed by balls of iron and a willingness to stand ground, while defining and defending "REAL American Values."

Real Frank Capra Mr. Smith shit:

The American Worker works hard, and deserves job security

Healthcare is a RIGHT, not a priviledge - the constitution requires the US Government to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Our constitutional rights are not negotiable.

Defending life is just as important for real live people who've already been born

American citizens are more important than corporations, and as such should not take a backseat to corporate lobbyists

The American political system is fundamentally in need of a healthy dose of significant campaign finance sunshine.

Etc. etc.



The Dems could do this and win big, however, you won't ever see these things happen, as they would be biting the hand that feeds them, and it don't belong to Joe Voter.
posted by stenseng at 10:59 PM on May 8, 2006

(that optimism zing was for stensing, bardic - good posts)
posted by rougy at 11:00 PM on May 8, 2006

Murdoch to host fundraiser for Hillary Clinton

The owner of Fox News to hold a fundraiser for Hillary. Wonders never cease.
posted by caddis at 11:01 PM on May 8, 2006

IMO the only thing needs doing is for both parties to clean house.

This can only be accomplished at a grass-roots level. If you care to take back your country from the crooks, you are going to have to take an active role at your local level to ensurer your party elects honest people to represent you.

I am not confident this is actually do-able.

I don't know how your parties organize themselves at the most local levels, nor how the party machines work for and against local level candidates. If anyone who has knowledge of both the Canadian and American systems can explain the differences to this Canuck, I'm all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:01 PM on May 8, 2006

"The Dems would be stupid not to pay close attention to what works and what doesn't (and who does and who doesn't) come November, and take their cues from there, as opposed to the typical "top down" approach of the high paid "professional" campaign managers in DC."


Yes they would, and yes they are, at least in my state...
posted by stenseng at 11:01 PM on May 8, 2006

Well, what if it really was going to hell in a handbasket? Should we just ignore it, or what?

Are you insane? Of course we should ignore it in public. Just because you are not personally pissing on someone's leg doesn't mean you shouldn't also tell them that it's raining.

The Dems' strategy is, in my mind, going to be about driving a wedge between Latinos who lean Republican and white Republicans who have nativist and racist fears about "immigrants." The two groups can't remain in the same party indefinitely. Insofar as the Democrats need to attract more white votes, they need to paint "voting Republican" as an act of associating oneself with nativist and anti-Latino agitation so that "respectable" white middle class voters will vote Democratic rather than identify with the Tom-Tancredo-like extremists, who are becoming noisier and noisier, of late.

What's been the result of Blair's "Third Way"? A distinctly un-laboresque system of surveillance and police-state initiatives which have nevertheless resulted in rising crime; stubborn involvement in a messed up war in Iraq combined with an almost delusional insistence that the United States should not be criticized for its pre-war and post war actions; and a Prime Minister who has little if any public credibility.

Using terms like "third way" is such an anachronistic phrasing from another era. Politicians who get elected on the premise of being for "The Third Way" don't believe in the initiatives of "the third way." They believe in "splitting the difference" between the two sides on principle. That might work sometimes, but it's not a long-term strategy. At some point you actually have to stand for something, not stand for "splitting the difference."
posted by deanc at 11:03 PM on May 8, 2006

Also, I'm happier believing that this study is bollocks than accept its conclusion, which is that Americans bringing in $30k/year simply don't give a shit about those on $15k/year.
posted by holgate at 11:03 PM on May 8, 2006

The Dems...need work, that's for certain. Did anybody see that Pelosi/Russert interview on Crooks & Liars?

She should have gone for his throat. She's treating the viewers as if they don't know what's going on, or couldn't comprehend her explanation, so she shifted around instead of launching an offensive.

We need more Dean getting in their faces.

We need to see Gore on his new news channel venture.

The Dems have to realize that...the truth carries a lot of weight, and pussy-footing around ain't cutting it.
posted by rougy at 11:05 PM on May 8, 2006

(deanc beat me to the point on "third way" I wanted to make originally--it's a short term strategy of divide the base from the undecideds for Pyrrhic gain. Clinton was lucky to get the F out of Dodge in 2000, while Blair's coalition is now reeling. It's not something you can build on, generally.)
posted by bardic at 11:12 PM on May 8, 2006

"I don't know how your parties organize themselves at the most local levels, nor how the party machines work for and against local level candidates. If anyone who has knowledge of both the Canadian and American systems can explain the differences to this Canuck, I'm all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.

Okay, well, in my state, we have county parties. Each county Democratic Party is affiliated with the state party, but is not specifically chartered or governed by the state party (although the state party folks often seem to forget that bit of info...)

Within the county party, you have a central committee that is the governing body for the county - that consists of an executive committee (Chair, Vice Chair, secretary, treasurer, etc. ) and voting central committee members. The voting central committee members are precinct committtee persons, legislative chairs, etc.

In theory, Precinct Committee Persons (or Precinct Captains more informally) are charged with organizing voters, arranging GOTV efforts, canvassing, doorknocking, etc for their precinct (which is usually about the size of a neighborhood.)

In practice, these folks usually do very little of that, and it's tough just to get them to show up and vote at meetings.

Also, these types of long time party activists tend to be more oriented toward the social and fraternal aspects of their participation than doing the actual work of partybuilding and outreach. Other people's mileage may vary.
posted by stenseng at 11:13 PM on May 8, 2006

Cdn system: Locally, I can get involved with a party and help influence which candidate is selected to present the public face in this riding. At the very least there is opportunity for discussion, debate, and voting. This local candidate will do two things: run locally for position of Member of Parliment; and attend the party convention and cast our local's vote for party leader, aka the guy who would be Prime Minister.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:14 PM on May 8, 2006

stenseng: to continue the derail — your county party is tasked with drumming up support for the state candidate, or drumming up support for the county candidate? And does the county candidate get a position in government if the party wins the election, or is the county candidate tasked with representing your county in a Convention vote, during which the state representative will be elected?

I guess the question is: does the county elect its Federal representative directly, or does it share the Federal rep with the rest of the State's counties?

I'm under the impression you guys live under one more layer of government than I do. I take part in three levels of government: city, provincial, and federal. I believe you have an extra layer called "county" in there. I'm not sure how that works.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:23 PM on May 8, 2006

Essentially, I think America is outgrowing two party politics, and that's probably a good thing, especially since the two parties seem to be engaged in a headlong rush to the bottom of a pit of corruption, cronyism, special interest pandery, and corporate patronage that leaves the parties substantively near identical.


Ok. So what has to change to make the system work with such a reality? The Greens feel a bill by Obey would knee-cap all but the present 2 party system.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2006_02_09.shtml If such fear is correct it looks like a move to help keep a party ssytem not break it.

The only non Democrat/Republican I am aware of in Congress is a gent who left the 2 party system to be 'Independant' and he doesn't get to caucus with either of the 2 parties.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:30 PM on May 8, 2006

I'd say it's usually county, state, Federal in the US, with cities and townships having mayors and such, and this level of politics usually brings little interest, which is a shame. Every state has it's own Congress though, or Statehouse, presided over by a governor. Winning a state congressional race is based on one's precinct, which includes multiple counties, and can be a stepping-stone for a House or Senate seat in DC. County and city are often interchangeable as well--some incorporated cities are counties. I used to live in DC, which is pretty weird as well--we had "shadow" Congresspersons, who could speak but couldn't vote in the national Congress. DC does, however, have electoral college standing, so votes do count for president. I actually like the layering, in principle--lots of room for accountability, ideally.
posted by bardic at 11:33 PM on May 8, 2006

Bardic, Moulitsas is 0 for 17 (IIRC) on picking and pushing candidates. Is he really someone you want to use as an authority?

I just wanted to mention that I didn't post this because I agreed with it, I posted it because I thought you all would find it interesting. My own opinion is that it's a lost cause: the Democrats cannot "win back" the middle class without abandoning everything they think makes them Democrats.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:33 PM on May 8, 2006

Bardic, Moulitsas is 0 for 17 (IIRC) on picking and pushing candidates.

I'm sure that's news to Reps. Stephanie Herseth and Ben Chandler. Oh, and nice to admit you're trolling.
posted by holgate at 11:44 PM on May 8, 2006

stenseng: to continue the derail — your county party is tasked with drumming up support for the state candidate, or drumming up support for the county candidate? And does the county candidate get a position in government if the party wins the election, or is the county candidate tasked with representing your county in a Convention vote, during which the state representative will be elected?

I guess the question is: does the county elect its Federal representative directly, or does it share the Federal rep with the rest of the State's counties?

I'm under the impression you guys live under one more layer of government than I do. I take part in three levels of government: city, provincial, and federal. I believe you have an extra layer called "county" in there. I'm not sure how that works.

Hoo boy, okay, lemme see here-

The County Party organization is tasked with identifying voters, spreading the "message" of the DNC, etc etc. and identifying, recruiting, and supporting local candidates.

Each state has a legislature, which is a small statewide miniature version of the US congress, with a state senate and a state house of representatives. The Senate drafts the state's laws, and the House is the financing arm of things, developing budgets for the state.

As to who gets elected on the county level, local officials like state representatives, county clerks, sherriffs, coroners, etc get elected at the county level, (or realistically the legislative district level which is a whole different ball of wax...) The hierarchy essentially goes city, county, legislative district, then state.

The "Federal rep" you speak of, a US congressperson, either a member of the United States Senate, or the United States House of Representatives, gets elected at the statewide level. Each state in the United States has two Senators. The number of House Representatives varies from state to state and is dependent on the population of the state.

I would say you're probably correct - there is an extra layer in our system than yours, if I understand your system correctly. I would say that yout city level is of course like ours, your provincial is analogous to our county level, and the federal, our state. The extra level is the legislative district level in which we elect state legislators.
posted by stenseng at 11:47 PM on May 8, 2006

Bardic - not to nitpick, but there is only one Congress, and it's in Washington D.C.

The states have Legislatures, not Congresses.
posted by stenseng at 11:48 PM on May 8, 2006

fff: parliamentary sytems tend to have strong central party organisations, or at very least strong connections between national party HQ and local groups. There's also a tradition of paid-up membership to sustain local party activities. In the US, candidates have their own staff, and have relatively loose connections between county, state and federal party orgs. In short, running as a federal candidate requires begging, cajoling and cat-herding at least three separate groups.
posted by holgate at 11:48 PM on May 8, 2006

Steven, tell that to Virginians who easily voted in a Democratic governer in a very red state last year. As for Moulitsas, well, I like a lot of books--I just threw it out there as a reference to what I'm trying to get at re: a Democratic platform that tries to appeal to everyone, rather than the failed "third way" politics of giving up, a priori, on all southern and/or conservative states. Further, there are plenty of disgruntled Republicans out there. Even if they pinch their collective noses and don't vote for anyone, that's a potential victory come 2008.

As for your trolling on 0 for 17, Kos likes to back long-shots, as opposed to the monied insiders--that's the f'ing point!

Why is throwing out a book recommendation tantamount to endorsing someone's philosophies whole-cloth? They're called ideas. But you're right--from now on I'll only read books by Michael Jordan and Lance Armstrong.
posted by bardic at 11:51 PM on May 8, 2006

"The Senate drafts the state's laws, and the House is the financing arm of things, developing budgets for the state. "

Also, this is a bit of an over-generalization on my part. The original intention was for the House of Representatives to more closely reflect the will of the people, or how legislation will impact the specific representative's constituency, whereas the Senator is supposed to weigh the impact on the State or Nation as a whole.

Theoretically.

In my experience, the practical difference seems to be that the House is shriller, more fast paced, wields more practical power, and has a much higher turnover rate.
posted by stenseng at 11:53 PM on May 8, 2006

stenseng, you are correct sir. But they tend to follow the bicameral model, hence my bad. (Hell, in Virginia they don't have a state, they have a Commonwealth--go figure.)

County Seat/Courthouse (based on county), Statehouse/Legislature (based on amalgams of counties, sort of), DC (based on states). That's better. But there are plenty of exceptions like the one above, which can be kind of charming and maddening at the same time.
posted by bardic at 11:54 PM on May 8, 2006

Yeah, the Commonwealth of Virginia is a cute example, although that's really just the long name of the state. They still self identify as a state, so I suppose the proper way to address the issue would be The State of the Commonwealth of Virginia...=)
posted by stenseng at 11:58 PM on May 8, 2006

FFF: So do you not have "Provincial Legislatures" or whatever to set budgets and enact laws for that province or area of the country, or is that all decided at the federal level?

I always assumed you must, since you have different provincial license plates and stuff, right?
posted by stenseng at 12:01 AM on May 9, 2006

Let's step back a second and take a seasoned critique of this think-tank's findings. First off, the premise that one defines 'middle-class' as $30k-$70k household income. That's a really lazy definition, and from it, all their points proceed. One might be ungracious and suggest that they choose that range solely to make the numbers fit their proposals.

Another elision: they use 'median household income of voters' instead of 'median household income of people'. That skews the numbers further upward, and essentially says that if you don't already vote, you're not really that relevant. Given that the non-voting electorate more or less matches the voting electorate, and skews lower in terms of household income, the kind of demographic number-crunching is really about whether you can get those who'd benefit from progressive policies to the polls, rather than placating those who supposedly believe that investment in education and healthcare helps all 'those people'.

In a two-party system like that in the US, it's easy to say that the Democrats are hardly progressive; that said, a Democratic Party that abandons or glosses over progressive policies has no reason to exist. It'd be like the GOP forgetting (in its actions, not its words) that it exists for the benefit of the wealthy.

Anyway, as Flann O'Brien's pub debater put it, the argument is fallacious, being based on licensed premises.
posted by holgate at 12:28 AM on May 9, 2006

delmoi:

> Well, what if it really was going to hell in a handbasket? Should we just ignore it, or what?

Those who compare the age in which their lot has fallen with a golden age which exists only in imagination, may talk of degeneracy and decay; but no man who is correctly informed as to the past, will be disposed to take a morose or desponding view of the present.
- Macaulay, History of England. Vol. i. Chap. i.

Things have been going to Hell in a handbasket since the origin of life on Earth, if not before. But we're not there yet. Guys (and girls) with balls big enough to find without a hand lens are expected to remain of good cheer until we actually arrive.

posted by jfuller at 3:47 AM on May 9, 2006

I'm a former Republican. Never again. Now that the President has made it clear that obeying the law, respecting the Constitution, and not torturing people are liberal values, I've realized I was apparently a liberal all along.
posted by EarBucket at 3:49 AM on May 9, 2006

I particularly agree that the addiction to pessimism and bad news is the main feature of contemporary liberalism that turns people off.

Isn't what defines contemporary liberalism essentially a deep dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the idea that we can do better?? The conservative can say "all is well, there's no need to change", and that's all well and good for him/her, but I thought that what made us liberals was a desire to make our world better through good government and public policy.

Clearly, the message has not be well articulated of late, but your calling it pessimism means that you have let the right frame the debate again. In other words, Republicans say, "liberals want to change things because they are pessimistic (hate America)."

We have got to get over this optimism/pessimism dichotomy, these words are utterly meaningless as anything other than window dressing.
posted by psmealey at 4:35 AM on May 9, 2006

so, let me see if i understand this ... what progressives should do is stop being progressive ... and allow the middle class to remain in their state of willful ignorance while helping them raid the federal treasury to prop up their lifestyle, even more than the republicans have done

this isn't the solution to the problem, it IS the problem ... and the middle class are getting the government they deserve ... one that's as money-grubbing, incompetent, venal and unaware as they are

it's all about getting the goodies for yourself and people like you and fuck everyone else ... it's a great prescription for individuals and groups of people with influence

in the long term it will be a disaster for the country

considering we've been running this country like this for decades, the long term may not be all that long
posted by pyramid termite at 4:41 AM on May 9, 2006

The owner of Fox News to hold a fundraiser for Hillary. Wonders never cease.

Makes perfect sense. Murdoch wants HRC to be the opponent, because he knows his side will win.

Why do you think so many GOP funding sources gave to Nader in 2000?

As to Clinton -- Clinton won for two reasons. Yes, he was a great campaingner, but his biggest advantage was Ross Perot. It's much easier to win if you split your opponents vote.

Why do you think so many GOP funding sources gave to Nader in 2000?
posted by eriko at 5:35 AM on May 9, 2006

I'm with stenseng: the Dems policies have always been more in step with American principles or as he put it 'Mr. Smith Frank Capra' stuff, then the GOP. We might as well sell it that way, but maybe that makes the Metro wing of the party uneasy, I dunno.
posted by jonmc at 6:38 AM on May 9, 2006

maybe that makes the Metro wing of the party uneasy

Where else are they going to go?
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:41 AM on May 9, 2006

Healthcare is a RIGHT, not a priviledge - the constitution requires the US Government to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

No, it doesn't. You're probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence, but even if you had written that, you'd still be wrong. The DoI says that We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which does not mean that healthcare is a right codified by the nation's founders.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:51 AM on May 9, 2006

Which does not mean that healthcare is a right codified by the nation's founders.

Perhaps, but people always argue against abortion and euthanasia on 'right to life,' grounds. It'd be pretty slick to get Universal Health Care the same way.
posted by jonmc at 7:03 AM on May 9, 2006

If anyone who has knowledge of both the Canadian and American systems can explain the differences to this Canuck, I'm all ears.

From your perspective, there is very little organization and what organization there is is crippled.

Fundamentally, American parties do not control their own nominations. For any office other than President, whoever wins the relevant primary is the party's nominee whether they like it or not. Also, you do not have to be a member of the party in order to vote in their primary, you merely have to indicate that you wish to vote in that primary.

American parties do not have party leaders in the Canadian / parliamentary sense.

IME, this is all extremely fucked-up and is a relic of earlier "reforms" to remove power from party "bosses" and put parties firmly under the heel of the state.

how the party machines work for and against local level candidates

Party organizations have services they can provide to candidates or withold from candidates. But you can get any of these services on the open market as well.

you not have "Provincial Legislatures" or whatever

Yes, Canada has provincial legislatures. What Canada doesn't have (mostly?) is a layer that functions like American counties do. In Ontario, the regions might be closest.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:30 AM on May 9, 2006

your county party is tasked with drumming up support for the state candidate, or drumming up support for the county candidate?

Both. The extent to which they do either is up to the local party in question. The extent to which they do either is not normally a deciding factor in any race at US House or above -- congressional races and even state legislative races are essentially run by the candidates themselves with relatively little help from outside.

And does the county candidate get a position in government if the party wins the election

No fucking way.

or is the county candidate tasked with representing your county in a Convention vote, during which the state representative will be elected?

Not that either. Delegates to state conventions are selected separately, though they can of course include county party leaders.

As far as forming party platforms go, who gives a fuck? The platform or party program is nearly irrelevant. Candidates cannot be forced to follow it. Candidates cannot be selected by their willingness to abide by it. The party does not have uniquely-held resources that it can deny to candidates who piss them off.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:36 AM on May 9, 2006

What the Democrats have to do to win back the American middle class.

Framing.
1) What middle class (as someone already said)
2) Win back? So they've lost?

This is the right framing the left.
I don't accept such framing.
Neither does Lakoff.

Know what Dems have to do to win in 2006?
Nothing.
The GOP is doing it all for them.
That's what Melman said.
posted by nofundy at 7:38 AM on May 9, 2006

I like Martin Frost, and think he is dead-on accurate. The best hope for the Democratic party is to keep with the Bill Clinton's Third Way with the DLC. Bill Clinton brought forth the idea to the national stage, so to that extent, he is its greatest champion. However, Clinton was also its greatest enemy as his personal problem ultimately overcame it. The DLC Third Way should solider on, though. If the Democratic party won't go with it, they should make their own party, and they would win the Downsian middle with pragmatic policies.

It is, of course, not surprising that the DLC is so hated by the partisan left (or "progressives" as they call themselves). It will be a colossal mistake for the Democratic party for it to be co-opted by the partisan left. American people don't like their polices and shrill pessimism. There is a reason why the only success the Democratic Party has had in 25 years has been when they ran a DLC type.

that said, a Democratic Party that abandons or glosses over progressive policies has no reason to exist.

That's a pure, unadulterated tautology. You define Democratic Party as standing for progressive principle and that gives the basis for your statement. It would be equally tautological to say that a Democratic party that adopts only progressive principles has no reason to exist.

I don't know where people get off that the Democratic Party is supposed to be in line with the Kos-left. I call bullshit on that and pray that its party leaders don't think that either.
posted by dios at 8:08 AM on May 9, 2006

The DoI says that We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Which does not mean that healthcare is a right codified by the nation's founders.

The preamble of the Constitution does task us to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

None of which, in my opinion, is being done.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 8:10 AM on May 9, 2006

I actually sort of wish the Democrats would drop the white male middle class entirely. By pandering only to women, minorities, and to some extent the working class
posted by maxreax at 12:11 AM CST on May 9

You aren't alone. That sort of vile and disgusting identity politics is quite common. If the Democratic leadership is seduced by this naked attempt at "winning" and effectively says "screw you" to me because of who I am, then they aren't worthy of a vote. For people who talk about "principles" it is awfully revolting to think that the political goal is to "pander" to particular interest groups just to get power. Or as some other person said up thread "drive a wedge between Hispanics and whites" by trying to paint whites a racists. It sickens me to honestly put forth such ideas as if they were good ideas for the country.
posted by dios at 8:18 AM on May 9, 2006

I actually sort of wish the Democrats would drop the white male middle class entirely. By pandering only to women, minorities, and to some extent the working class

For people who talk about "principles" it is awfully revolting to think that the political goal is to "pander" to particular interest groups just to get power.

Politics as usual gentlemen. I wish it wasn't so, but it basically is. Divide and conquer has always been the biggest tool in the politician's kit. And politics, by it's very nature attracts the worst kind of people.
posted by jonmc at 8:30 AM on May 9, 2006

I agree with you, Dios. When the republicans put gay marriage initiatives on the ballot in nearly every battleground state in '04 to pull out the knuckledragging fundies to the polls it was a blatant attempt to divide and fuel their win on the propellant of fear and biggotry.

Both sides do it, and it's a damn shame.
posted by prodigalsun at 8:57 AM on May 9, 2006

Both sides do it, and it's a damn shame.
posted by prodigalsun at 10:57 AM CST on May 9

Absolutely. All the more reason for a third way that transcends identity politics.
posted by dios at 8:59 AM on May 9, 2006

Yeah, the grand Southern Strategy, the McCain is crazy and has a black baby, the lying Swiftboaters, all are vile and disgusting identity politics.
The extremists of the right (you know, those currently in charge) really need to quit this policy of pandering to particular interest groups like the religio-fundies and corporations and it sickens me to honestly put forth such ideas as if they were good ideas for the country.

Gee that cuts both ways, huh?

What about it, are we the haves or the have mores?
posted by nofundy at 9:07 AM on May 9, 2006

None of you are listening to me. It's a popularity contest, and the Dems just need someone charming to run for them. The issues barely matter.
posted by cell divide at 9:18 AM on May 9, 2006

FFF: So do you not have "Provincial Legislatures" or whatever to set budgets and enact laws for that province or area of the country, or is that all decided at the federal level?

Both. We pay Federal and Provincial income taxes as well as Federal and Provincial sales taxes. I believe the Province is free to do what it wants with its own money; monies transferred from the feds sometimes have strings attached (ie. can only be spent on healthcare, education, whatever.)

The party does not have uniquely-held resources that it can deny to candidates who piss them off.

Money? As in, a lot of money?


Any which way, it sounds like the US system is a clusterfuck.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:20 AM on May 9, 2006

nofundy, I don't think anybody here is denying the disgusting tactics the right has used to get in power, just making the observation that, historically speaking, every kind of political figure has used dirty tricks of all kinds to get and maintain power. My theory as I said before is that politics attracts these types of personalities by it's very nature. And I don't think either the right or the left has ever held a monopoly on sketchy behavior. I don't like it, but there you have it.
posted by jonmc at 9:24 AM on May 9, 2006

For people who talk about "principles" it is awfully revolting to think that the political goal is to "pander" to particular interest groups just to get power.
posted by dios at 8:18 AM PST on May 9

gay marriage
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:38 AM on May 9, 2006

dios, the "partisan left", as you call it, is a movement that is partisan, rather than ideological. It was borne of frustration of the micromanaged focus-group politics advocated by the DLC.

The "partisans" right now are the ones who aren't part of a traditional Democratic constituency. They're not the union members, racial minorities, pro-chioce activists etc. that make up the Democratic party coalitions. They're the ones saying, "wait a sec-- wht about me? Why isn't the party paying attention to us, and why aren't we winning?" In this sense, talking about "how can we appeal to middle class white males?" is just trying to turn them into another "interest group."

The partisan wing of the Democratic party is the one that's been frustrated by the DLC "third way" which stnds for nothing other than "meeting the right-wing halfway on their radical initiatives." That's not a way to run a party.
posted by deanc at 10:03 AM on May 9, 2006

Politics in America is a cult of personality. The message is important, but the messenger is usually more important.

That doesn't mean that the message doesn't matter. I think the Dems need to offer up someone with righteous, informed,indignation - someone willing to forcefully call bullshit on this administration and its policies. Someone who can evoke the offensiveness and "unAmericanness" of what's happening. If it takes including history and civics lessons in the stump speeches, then do it - but lay out in no uncertain terms that what King George is doing is, at best, against democratic principles and, at worst, illegal.

Fuck strategy -take off the gloves, take a stand, and let the chips fall where they will. Give voice to the uncertainty that is obviously out there (judging by BushCo's poll numbers).

I personally think Joe Biden could pull it off, if he was willing.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:11 AM on May 9, 2006

Some people here see "third way" as an ideology to be embraced--I see it as a failed practice. Until recently (and thanks to Bush's collapse), the DLC has been afraid to put money behind candidates in solidy southern and/or red districts, because that would be a waste of time as long as all of the northeast, half of the midwest, small pockets in the south, and the left coast voted Dem. It hasn't worked, and it won't work. Dean is right, and has been the best thing that's happened to my party in a while--concede nothing, even if it goes against your precious "winning philosophy" that hasn't actually won a damn thing since 1996.
posted by bardic at 10:28 AM on May 9, 2006

Gotcha jonmc.
Please notice my post had excerpts from another particular poster that doesn't agree with that premise (i.e., incivility? its' all those Dem's fault!)

I hear you cell divide! I say we draft whoever wins American Idol! [cough]

Max Cleland never got anyting he didn't deserve, huh?
posted by nofundy at 10:31 AM on May 9, 2006

No way. Biden is a toothless bulldog. He's tough on camera, for a pithy soundbite, then climbs right back in bed with the GOPers when no one is looking.

And the fact that Dios is counseling Dems to continue with DLC "third-way" strategy ought to be warning enough that this is a loser strategy.

I'm telling you, if the Dems picked core principals - social security, health care, civil liberties, etc and attached them to a smart campaign reminding us how hard our fathers and grandfathers fought to defend those rights in WWII etc, and how much Americans suffered and pulled through in the Depression, and the changes we made, ala soc sec, etc to make sure that never happened again, that's the winning strategy.

Democratic Values ARE American Values.

The Democratic Party is the party of Atticus Finch, of Jefferson Smith, of the America that we all want it to be.

Now, you can snark and say, well, those are fictional characters... Well, sure. But so was Ronald Reagan, and so is George W. Bush.

We need to reinvigorate the Democratic Party as a party of quiet dignity, respect for our history and the sacrifices of earlier generations, and as vigilant guardians of our unique and wonderful rights and freedoms as Americans, and we need to be willing to do it with uncompromising and steely resolve.

"You see, boys forget what their country means by just reading The Land of the Free in history books. Then they get to be men they forget even more. Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books, Miss Saunders. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will. Boys ought to grow up remembering that."
posted by stenseng at 10:34 AM on May 9, 2006

Did anyone see Biden put on that Princeton baseball cap while he was questioning Alito on his association with the bigots in CAP?

First off, the cap didn't fit. Second, Biden is a smart guy, but completely unfit to run for president. Which is a shame, because with a strong dose of humility he'd be pretty good.
posted by bardic at 10:40 AM on May 9, 2006

cap
posted by bardic at 10:41 AM on May 9, 2006

Money? As in, a lot of money?

No. Direct donations from the parties to campaigns are capped at a fairly low level (IIRC, $10K per election cycle but I haven't kept up with regulatory changes post-McCain/Feingold). This is about what five voters can give.

There are ways around this to a limited extent. The practical upshot is that parties can offer nontrivial donations, but that are still not much more than chump change in contested races.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:58 AM on May 9, 2006

because with a strong dose of humility he'd be pretty good.

That's essentially what I meant by "if he was willing". I know he wants to run - probably will run - but he needs to remold himself a bit. He's articulate enough to make a sensible and understandable case for the Dems, though. Better than most I can think of.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:09 AM on May 9, 2006

Of course support from the party comes in a lot more ways than financial. Well organized county parties can provide the most important resource to a local campaign - volunteer bodies. They also can help grease the way for a lot of intangibles that candidates need through circles of influence, such as real estate owned by party supporters upon which a candidate can place his or her campaign signs, locations for fundraising events, connections to people in the media, access to a broader circle of party donors and supporters, mailing lists of potential constituents already id'ed as party supporters, and more.

So while the party can't make or break a candidate financially, or via the platform, they can severely hinder, or incredibly help that candidate via other less tangible resources.
posted by stenseng at 11:13 AM on May 9, 2006

I laugh at the typical partisan hacks who are so sure of themselves that the DLC is a loser and that Dean and the Left wing of the party are the key to winning.

They are either entirely disingenuous or have no memory. Recent history has proven that the only Democrat to win the office in 25 years was a DLC type. The Partisan Left has been an electoral failure.

Nevertheless, these hacks are arguing that the DLC is the non-winner and that this country needs lefties, as if Mondale was William the Conqueror.
posted by dios at 11:15 AM on May 9, 2006

I laugh at the typical partisan hacks who are so sure of themselves that the DLC is a loser and that Dean and the Left wing of the party are the key to winning.

I think Dean'll do fine as a behind the scenes guy and strategist, because he lacks the telegenicness and media charm and savvy that (for better or for worse) is a big factor in elections these days, he's not so viable as a candidate.
posted by jonmc at 11:30 AM on May 9, 2006

dios, yes, Clinton was a success. So was Blair. Short-term successes that went hand-in-hand with a booming 90's economy in both countries, great prosperity and relative peace with exceptions like Somalia and Yugoslavia.

But so what? Clinton didn't leave a legacy to build upon for his party, unless you consider his wife, and the chances of her winning are slim to none, IMO. Blair's party is fracturing, and there's a growing likelihood that the next PM will be either hard-Tory or hard-Labor, and the vaunted "third way" folks will be worse off than ever before, if not ignored.

Dean isn't running for anything--right now, he's simply an effective fundraiser who's good at getting smallish donations from individuals rather than relying on major corporations and/or slush funds. He gets people in the party excited, he knows when to throw red-meat, etc. That's his job.

If Clinton and the third way was so darn succesful for the Dems, please explain to me who their great hope for 2008 is? You'll notice, there isn't one, certainly not a clear-cut one. If you'd bother to read the thread, you'd see that no Dems, including myself, begrudge Clinton's success--what bothers many of us is the fact that in dividing the base from the moderates/independents, Bill Clinton's success was pyrrhic at best, and coupled with his personal failings, a disaster for the party.

Now that Bush is sinking like a rock, there's a chance to not just win big in Nov. 2006 and 2008, but to re-fashion the Democracts around simpler, modest, ground-level, universal values, rather than the "big-stakes" model of only competing and winning in the states you have to, championed by guys like Bob Shrum who have been running and losing elections for the Dems since the 1970's. And that's a very good thing, and the thrust of some, not all, of Moulitsas' new book, which is why I brought it up.

But it's nice to know you care so much about my Democratic party. I'll be happy to put your email on a few lists if you so desire.
posted by bardic at 11:31 AM on May 9, 2006

Uh, Dios, can I have some of what you're smoking?

I can tell you, as someone with experience within the party, that in fact, it is the DLC philosophy that's been a failure for the last fifteen years. The Democratic party has been dominated by the DLC since 1992, and Clinton is essentially the *only* big victory that philosophy has brought the party. It's caused Dems to lose a huge amount of ground otherwise.

Clinton didn't win because of "triangulation." Clinton won because he has the personal magnetism of Elvis and Kennedy combined. People love the guy. He's way Alpha. He could have been going around putting babies on spits and still won against Bush the Smarter and Dole.
posted by stenseng at 11:34 AM on May 9, 2006

What stenseng says.
posted by nofundy at 11:55 AM on May 9, 2006

Again, it's as if consistency in thoughts is too much to ask for around here. "Clinton is phyrric victory... DLC was a failure... Clinton was successful... Clinton is the success DLC has brought to the Democratic party...." Which is to avoid saying that Clinton's/DLC's victory in 1992 and 1996 were THE ONLY victories of the Democratic party (phyrric or otherwise) in the last 25 years. Or that while Clinton is the ONLY success the DLC has brought to the party, the ONLY success of the party in the last 25 years was from the DLC.

The DLC brings voters like me. And as much as you hate me, I am the kind of voter that is the king maker. The DLC knows that. They are the only success of the last 25 years of the Democratic party because they are the ones which know how to move beyond partisanship and get the votes of the middle of the road guys.

The Democratic party was idiotic enough to run candidates like the ones the partisans here like. And, as you may recall, Mondale was the biggest ass kicking in the history of American politics.
posted by dios at 12:06 PM on May 9, 2006

I am the kind of voter that is the king maker.

I can see the strategy meetings now.

"We need to get the votes of libertarian authoritarians!"
"Hmm . . . we'll criminalize purple shirts and make child molestation legal!"

The next day's sub-headline: CREEPY WEIRDOS ALSO CRUCIAL SWING VOTE
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:11 PM on May 9, 2006

Dios, first of all, I don't hate you. I just think you're messed up, delusional, and generally full of shit.

Second, the Democratic Party has largely lost the last 25 years, for a confluence of reasons - the deregulation and corporatization of the major media, the weakening and destabilization of labor unions, and the Party's continued willingness to abandon their traditional voting blocs - women, minorities, and labor, to make short term gains that never happen.

Carter lost because the Reganistas ratfucked him (and committed treason in the process) by making deals with the Iranians to hold American citizens in captivity until after the election.

Mondale lost, not because of his politics, but because he and his people simply ran a far weaker campaign than the Reagan folks.

And the Dems during this period, instead of regrouping and brainstorming, panicked and completely abandoned their core principles and in doing so, their base.

Again, Clinton won because he was a stronger personality. Period. GHW Bush and Bob Dole were the consummate cold fish limp-dicks of the GOP, and he trounced them.
posted by stenseng at 12:15 PM on May 9, 2006

dios, the only reason the DLC is even being discussed is because Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 elections. The DLC did not make Clinton. Clinton made the DLC. Since then, everyone who tried to follow the siren song of the "third way" went down in flames.

Let me explain to you why this doesn't work. The point of being a "DLC/Third-Way" candidate is to say, "Both sides are wrong. I will navigate between the two of them." Well, for the Democrats, this caused the left to move incrementally further to the center-right. (I note you never mention what specific parts of Dean's ideology is so "left", and the reason you don't is because his views and those of the partisan wing of the Democratic party are pretty centrist). The problem, here, of course, is that the very identity of the "Third Way"-ers is based in navigating the "extremists" on his flanks. Thus, the increasingly centrist left flank of the third-way-er has to be continually painted as "left wing extremists." Meanwhile, that third-way-er is continuing to forge the "center path" between the right-wingers and centrists. The party partisans are pretty irritated that their leader doesn't "stand" for anything other than painting them as "left wingers," and the right-wingers are perfectly happy to see the agenda tilt further and further to the right.

You almost prove my point when you claim that people with fringe views such as yourself are the "kingmakers." When Democratic politicians are saying, "How can we pander to and attract the votes of authoritarian people who hate Democrats?" it's a sign that they no longer stand for anything.
posted by deanc at 12:19 PM on May 9, 2006

In the final analysis, the presidential race has become a popularity contest - so the ticket is to find a candidate who is seen as likeable, a winner, strong, and alpha type, and craft a campaign that attaches traditional Democratic values to ideas of strength of character, determination, etc.

Run the Atticus Finch/Mr. Smith campaign, harken back to the depression, wwii, the civil rights movement, and point out that the party that's time and again saved America in her darkest hour have been the Dems.

Run Schweitzer from Montana with Feingold as veep.

Schweitzer has strength, western character, a history of being a bridge builder between parties (has a republican lt. gov, and hails from a red state) with Feingold, same history of bipartisan work, (Feingold/McCain) credibility on Iraq (voted no) and free of taint of corruption (again McCain/Feingold legislation,) and hails from the midwest.

Montana and Wisconsin - doesn't get any more heartland of America than that.
posted by stenseng at 12:23 PM on May 9, 2006

posted by stenseng at 12:25 PM on May 9, 2006

Oh, have I mentioned that Schweitzer has like a 74% approval rating in Montana?
posted by stenseng at 12:27 PM on May 9, 2006

i love dios' triumphalist tone, as if this douche would be president without flat-out fucking stealing an election, twice. so if the political wing of the bush administration weren't a bunch of thugs in power ties, and either election hadn't been stolen, what would your advice be then, smart guy?

the answer for the democrats is to cheat. we thank karl rove for that expensive lesson.
posted by Hat Maui at 12:34 PM on May 9, 2006

While we're triumphantly discussing how the Democrats need to be more shallow and superficially charming and charismatic candidates to win, it behooves me to point out that Schweitzer is overweight and Feingold is single and twice-divorced.
posted by deanc at 12:40 PM on May 9, 2006

I don't think they need to be shallow and superficially charming at all. I think they need to be genuine, and actually charming, and talk about real American values particularly those that bind us together, Republican or Democrat, (healthcare, civil liberties, education) in ways that harken back to an era of character, dignity, and guts.

People love Schweitzer - he's got the down-homey folksy charm of a Dubya, only it's real. He really IS a rancher, and Feingold is the real deal too - has a track record of putting his votes and credibility where his mouth is, and standing up for what he believes in.
posted by stenseng at 12:50 PM on May 9, 2006

Again, it's as if consistency in thoughts is too much to ask for around here.

but i guess inconsistency in political philosophy and principle would be alright with you ... and face it, dios, that's what you're arguing for ... candidates who shape and spin their opinions according to what the latest polls say ... panderers who make vague promises to the middle class without any intention of actually following up on them

we've already got that in both parties

what we need in this country is real leadership that offers a concrete set of alternatives and is willing to follow through on them ... even to the point where they may not get elected for standing for them

you're advocating for more flip-flop, waffling government ... that happens to be the problem, not the solution
posted by pyramid termite at 12:51 PM on May 9, 2006

dios, I don't care enough about you to hate you. And in terms of 2008, I've said plenty of times that I think running either a Hillary or a Feingold would be a disaster, because neither could be elected (for very different reaons, and FWIW I have the utmost respect for the Senator from Wisconsin). You really seem incapable, IMO, of distinguishing Nader Dems from Hillary Dems, which basically means you have no standing with which to judge the vast majority of us in the middle of the party, currently making plans and contacts for this November.

Honest question--did you even read what I posted? Am I still tainted by your hate list? Please let me now so I can set up the appropriate killfile.
posted by bardic at 12:57 PM on May 9, 2006

(I really like Schweitzer. Maybe not for president, but strong VP material. And further evidence that Dean's 50-State strategy is a good one. Local elections matter, even if a given red state's electoral college will never go blue. Give 'em a few years of true Democratic compassion and moderation (Schweitzer in MT, Warner and now Kaine in VA), and your gains are indirect, but just as important.)
posted by bardic at 1:00 PM on May 9, 2006

My dream ticket: Elliot Spitzer/Patrick Fitzgerald - two intelligent, articulate, principled outsiders who have the real goods on the criminal ruling class.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:01 PM on May 9, 2006

re: grassroots — sounds, then, that your best action is to get involved at the local level to support and elect whichever candidate regardless of party is the most honourable.

As far as I can tell from outside the country, the biggest problem you have is that both parties are essentially identical: a bunch of lousy cheats and liars who abuse their political connections for their sole profit whilst selling their constituency and the country down the river.

The party name is far less important at this point than cleaning house.

On a longer-term view, you desperately need a third party that's socially liberal. Your country is going to go into the dark ages if you don't get your shit together wrt healthcare, education, equality rights, and campaign reform.

IMO, YMMV, thank goodness I don't live in the USA it'd drive me spare.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:10 PM on May 9, 2006

Clinton won the first time because of Ross Perot.

Then he won the second time because he was the incumbant, times were great, and he was running against an 84 year old Senator.

The "3rd way" had nothing to do with his victories and everything to do with his befuddlement policy-wise when he was in office.

As far as I can tell from outside the country, the biggest problem you have is that both parties are essentially identical: a bunch of lousy cheats and liars who abuse their political connections for their sole profit whilst selling their constituency and the country down the river.

As opposed to the politicians in which country, again?
posted by cell divide at 1:22 PM on May 9, 2006

How bad the DLC has failed is simple: They've never really, ever succeeded on thier own merits. Mostly, they've just lost. Occasionally, though, they get lucky.

Remember, kids, the "Third Way" won BECAUSE OF A THIRD PARTY.

Clinton/Gore       44,909,806   43.01%
Bush/Quayle        39,104,550   37.45%	
Perot/Stockdale	   19,743,821	18.91%

Clinton/Gore       47,400,125	49.23%
Dole/Kemp          39,198,755	40.72%	
Perot/Choate	    8,085,402	 8.40%

Clinton won in 1992 because of a split vote, and he barely won in 1996, as most of the Perot voters just gave up. Had the GOP run a better candidate that Bob Dole, it would have been "GOP except for Perot.")

The GOP took this lesson to heart, which is why they worked hard to make sure there would be no Reform Party in 2000 -- and when Nader started shooting his mouth off, they shovled cash at him. Because, you know, what's good for the goose...

Bush/Cheney      50,460,110 47.87%
Gore/Lieberman   51,003,926 48.38%
Nader/LaDuke      2,883,105  2.73%

... is good for the gander.

Yes, Clinton is a hell of a campainger -- but Perot effectivly spotted him almost 20 millons votes. Yes, Gore ran a lousy campaign, staffed to the brim with DLC staffers, but Nader spotted Bush 2.8 million votes. Not nearly what Perot gave Clinton, but enough.

The reason that Dios and the rest of the GOP want us to carefully follow the DLC's advice -- to not be "seduced" by appealing to the base, to keep trying the "third" way -- is very simple.

They know that as long as the Democratic Party follows the Third Way, the GOP will will elections. They love to cite Kos's record in supporting candidates, but they'll never tell you the DLC's record.
posted by eriko at 1:25 PM on May 9, 2006

What eriko said, and then some.
posted by stenseng at 1:41 PM on May 9, 2006

FFS! I have voted for the DLC more times in my life than I have voted for Republicans and have said as much on this board a number of times. Nevertheless, several times now, the shit-for-brains contingent on Metafilter--who argue nothing but strawmen in desperate attempts to castigate anyone who might disagree--somehow keep trotting out in this discussion that I am a GOP operative trying to prop up the DLC because I think it is good for the GOP. I can't believe with such grand mal shitheadedness displayed by my detractors, *I* am the one called a troll and derailer here.
posted by dios at 1:47 PM on May 9, 2006

Believe it baby, believe it...
posted by stenseng at 1:54 PM on May 9, 2006

dios, I can just hear your spittle hitting the computer screen. Keep it up.
posted by bardic at 2:07 PM on May 9, 2006

As far as I can tell from outside the country, the biggest problem you have is that both parties are essentially identical: a bunch of lousy cheats and liars who abuse their political connections for their sole profit whilst selling their constituency and the country down the river.

More the reverse, I think. The weak parties in the US mean that everyone is running for themselves on a more purely local basis, and weak parties mean that individual legislators owe relatively little to party leaders. All of this together means that legislators care more for their own constituencies (who can hurt them badly) than they do about the grand sweep of national policy. Or at least, we force them to act as if they do.

The talk about grassroots is really misplaced. If anything, I'd guess that Canada gets the good things it does (health care, gay weddings) because a social elite forces its consensus on the rest of the public. What you see is grassroots politics when the bulk of the people aren't very motivated or interested.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:17 PM on May 9, 2006

I'm for women's rights, reducing the size and budget of the military, individual freedom, decriminalizing drugs and ending corporate welfare.

That's why I always vote Republicahahaha no, I can't do it.

How does he make it look so easy?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 3:32 PM on May 9, 2006

Well, you explain why that pinhead from Alaska has no problems spending a fair chunk of public coin on his bridge-to-nowhere scam: no interest in the betterment of the country as a whole, and a quickie make-a-buck program for his buddies up North.

But it doesn't explain the wholesale rip-off of the public. When some asshole takes megabucks from a lobbyist, he's not representing his constituents: he's lining his pockets and selling out his constituents.

Y'all really need reform. Get rid of the liars, cheaters, and crooks.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:47 PM on May 9, 2006

Actually, what the USA really needs is to cede the south-east corner of the country to the religious nutjobs that have taken over that domain, while the rest of y'all join Canada.

But you'll have to lose the obsession with guns and shooting each other. We don't do that so much up here. And if you can leave Texas and Florida holding the cheque for the Iraq war, so much the better.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:49 PM on May 9, 2006

But you'll have to lose the obsession with guns and shooting each other.

You'd have to lose the obsession about not having nuclear weapons -- unless you think Jesusland nuking you is OK.

Remember: Jesusland thinks the end of the world is a goal to strive for. Hint #2: Note how suddenly BushCo got off of North Korea's case after a certain explosion.
posted by eriko at 4:33 PM on May 9, 2006

fff, you're saying what I just said. The lack of responsibility to party leaders and the consequent focus on local constituency lead to stuff like that. They're not liars or crooks for doing so, they're just doing what their constituents demand because they don't have to worry about their party leaders yanking their nominations if they don't toe the line.

When some asshole takes megabucks from a lobbyist, he's not representing his constituents: he's lining his pockets and selling out his constituents.

That's not at all obvious. If a legislator from a district whose major employer is a pulp mill takes contributions from a paper/pulp PAC and pushes for legislation that helps pulp mills, there's no bright line separating honest representation of district interests from a corrupt quid pro quo.

They also can't take megabucks from a lobbyist or PAC. PAC contributions are capped at $5K/election, and most are well under that limit.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:40 PM on May 9, 2006

I'm all for nukes, so long as we agree that a born-and-bred Canuck holds the key!

ROU: 'k, I'll agree, simply 'cause you're the one in the swamp reporting on what the rats are doing.

Though if they can't take megabucks from a lobbyist, what's the story on the recent scandals involving Cunningham and Abramamoff and all that?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:00 PM on May 9, 2006

dios -

"I don't know where people get off that the Democratic Party is supposed to be in line with the Kos-left. I call bullshit on that and pray that its party leaders don't think that either."

No - I guess we're supposed to be "Good Democrats" and make you regressives happy by not wanting things like equality, fairness, and America that's as much for the working people as it is for the corporate controllers.

Any Democrat who would take advice from an "unbiased" source such as yourself deserves to lose their seat - and a few parting Bronx cheers for good measure.
posted by rougy at 7:10 PM on May 9, 2006

dios -

"The DLC brings voters like me. And as much as you hate me, I am the kind of voter that is the king maker. The DLC knows that. They are the only success of the last 25 years of the Democratic party because...."

...because the Bush people couldn't steal Florida and Ohio the previous two times.

(p.s. - we don't want voters like you)
posted by rougy at 7:17 PM on May 9, 2006

(p.s. - we don't want voters like you)

I presume you don't want voters like me, either. Enjoy the desert.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:16 PM on May 9, 2006

No - why should the left wing have to keep pandering to your rightwingers when we have a president with a 31% approval rating, and a republican congressional approval rating of...37%?

Don't let the screen door hit you on the ass....
posted by rougy at 10:05 PM on May 9, 2006

Well, rougy, if the civil-liberties wing of your party would do something (other than this garbage, for example), I might stop throwing my vote away on the libertarian party candidates. As it stands now, I don't see what you've got over the Republicans. Either way, we get more wars on abstract nouns.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:59 PM on May 9, 2006

Cursory glance - Alberto "Torture is Okay" Gonzales wants to use ISP snooping "only for child porn."

And you're mad at the cunt from Colorado who want's to add an amendment to make the deletion of that ISP data illegal.

You know?

Fuck her, and fuck him.

Are we on the same page now?
posted by rougy at 12:09 AM on May 10, 2006

Basically - we both know that the retention of that data will be used for political purposes - or some form of similar blackmail - regardless of the bill's intent.

Don't we?
posted by rougy at 12:11 AM on May 10, 2006

Don't let the screen door hit you on the ass....
posted by rougy
Amen.
I hear InstaHack is a "libertarian" too. [snicker]
posted by nofundy at 9:48 AM on May 10, 2006

How old are you, nofundy?
posted by Kwantsar at 10:37 AM on May 10, 2006

How relevant are you, Kwantsar?
posted by stenseng at 10:52 AM on May 10, 2006

, asks the poster who thinks that the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution.

And what's "relevance" got to do with it?
posted by Kwantsar at 11:56 AM on May 10, 2006

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
posted by stenseng at 1:07 PM on May 10, 2006

You can't be serious. The best response in this situation is to say "I was confused," "It was a minor, mental error," or "I fucked up."

But you're still trying to convince me that "the constitution requires the US Government to defend our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness."

You are factually wrong-- something that is apparent to just about every reasonable person who is reading this-- and instead of having the balls to admit it, you're twisting away. I'm embarrassed for you.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:19 PM on May 10, 2006

Oh jesus Kwantsar, you really are a pedantic douchebag. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," is an unalienable right of man according to Mr. Jefferson, in his Declaration of Independence, the concept initially based upon the writings of Locke.

What exactly do you think the Constitution is designed to do, other than codify in law those precepts set forth in the Declaration and other founding documents?

Now, can you stop being an asshat?
posted by stenseng at 1:30 PM on May 10, 2006

principled outsiders who have the real goods on the criminal ruling class.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:01 PM PST on May 9 [!]

For that to work, you'd have to have the citizens say "gee, there IS a bunch of criminals in charge"

Ever tried to have that conversation?


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
posted by stenseng at 1:07 PM PST on May 10 [!]

It is in the preamble. Thus, its legal weight is nil.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:34 PM on May 10, 2006

oh jesus. Look. The point - the point of my initial comment, and the point I'm making now, is not where the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" specifically appear, but that those are intrinsic concepts to the American experiment, they are what the founders intended America to be about, what the constitution was intended to protect and promote, and are the values that Democrats should be identifying with and fighting for. Christ.
posted by stenseng at 1:42 PM on May 10, 2006

Well, that's cute, and all, but I'm not really sure that you're relevant.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:44 PM on May 10, 2006

oh snaps yo. Oh no he di'int.
posted by stenseng at 1:45 PM on May 10, 2006

Chico : Now I aska you one. What has a trunk, but no key, weighs 2,000 pounds and lives in a circus?

Prosecutor : That's irrelevant.

Chico : Irrelephant? Hey, that'sa that answer. There's a whole lot of irrelephants in the circus.
posted by stenseng at 1:47 PM on May 10, 2006