what is more important to the democrats – winning elections or fighting over iraq? some might suggest that the war in iraq is so polarizing that the democrats can take back control of the white house, and possibly even pick up some congressional seats in the fall, BY fighting with the bush administration over iraq policy. i’m not so sure about that. being against the war in iraq is a legitimate point of view. i’m not saying it isn’t. it’s just that making this the main qualification for a candidate might not be the best strategy for the democrats.
lucky for the democrats, i’m here to help them with their strategy. no mortal human being can completely fix the fissure currently on display with the democratic party between the centrists and those who are, um…not so centrist. total unity between those two groups may not be possible. however, there are ways for the democrats to appeal to more voters, as long they start thinking more in big picture terms.
larry sabato asks several questions that democrats will have to answer when deciding the best strategy for picking a presidential candidate who could win the ’08 election. ***while it’s true that his questions have the most relevance to ’08 strategy, i believe that some of these questions also come into play when discussing potential congressional candidates. In some current mid-term races, the question of whether to throw their support behind someone like ned lamont in connecticut who opposes the iraq war, or joe lieberman who supports it and several other policies of the bush administration, is something currently being debated in democratic circles. it’s all part of the big picture as far as i’m concerned. ***
now to the questions.
“will they…
- … help themselves by nominating the candidate most likely to win, or will they insist on ideological purity?
- ….choose a person with broad popular appeal, or pick a controversial standard-bearer?
- …broaden their base, or merely attempt to produce the highest turnout possible among liberal constituency groups, a tactic that failed in 2004?
- …find a nominee fully able to compete with a Republican on national security, or simply hope to skate by on this greatest of all issue-clusters in the current age of terrorism?
for the first question, the answer to it should be pretty obvious. you go for the candidate who can get you the most votes, and the candidate who is the most electable.
controversial standard-bearers are only useful if they force electable candidates to re-think their positions on issues, or change them to appeal to those sympathetic to that person’s views. people who admit to unpopular views aren’t usually electable. maybe there are exceptions to this, but the conventional wisdom is usually true in this area.
how many votes can you get from the aforementioned liberal constituency groups? even if a majority of the people in those groups vote, my guess is that the democrats might be a few votes short. aren’t the democrats supposed to be famous for their inclusion, “big tent” philosophy, etc? so why not prove this inclusion by letting those who are in the minority on issues like abortion and the war in iraq have equal access to their party? broaden the base.
national security is important post 9/11. the voters want to know that their candidate’s party has a credible plan for national security. this plan should be more specific than “we won’t do what bush is doing”. it should include not only an alternative to iraq policy, but also a strategy to deal with securing our country’s borders. border security and tougher enforcement of current immigration law is essential as part of an overall national security plan.
i think the voters are smart enough to know when a candidate is pretending to be something he or she is not. so i think the democrats should say what they believe, and be willing to make the argument for why they believe it. if your position is defensible, defend it. it’s not about how awful, terrible, and horrible you think bush is. it’s about why voters should elect you. sell yourself.
my last bit of advice may be more cosmetic than any of the others, but this is something i don’t usually see from the modern democratic party. the spice girls called it “positivity”. be positive. america’s a great country. we have problems. there are inequalities in our society. nothing is ever perfect. we still should have hope and optimism that, in spite of everything going on in the world today, america’s best days are still ahead. i believe that. i would love to hear something like this from the democrats. that’s how reagan inspired the people of this country.
so those are my suggestions for the democrats. i just hope this is one of the days the dnc doesn’t come to visit this blog. i also hope, as always, that they will not take my suggestions seriously.
If I didnt know any better, from the sounds of this post, one would think you want the Dems to win a seat in Congress or maybe even the presidency 🙂
I am a little confused, though, as to whether you are talking about 08 or 06. The questions Sabato presents are for the 08 presidential race. But the election season this fall that you open with is the midterms and Sabatos questions really dont apply 🙂
Ill stick with 08 because those are the questions you answer as well.
I think you might sell presidential Dem candidates a little short on their ability to get votes or even mainstream votes. In 2000 Gore received 51% of the vote. In order to do that he must have gotten centrist voters as well as liberal voters. In 2004 Kerry received very close to 49% of the vote. Again, in order to appeal to such a broad base there must be the inclusion of far left votes to maybe even some a little right of center. Its not as if the Republicans have been winning landslide elections. In fact, in three of the last four presidential elections (’92, ’96, ’00) the Democratic nominee has received more votes than his Republican opponent. Bush is in by the skin of his teeth and not entirely because Democrats cant put forth someone who isnt electable.
I will agree with you that within Democratic ranks it is becoming very, very difficult for anyone slightly close to the center to get their voices heard. But judging from Bushs agenda of gay marriage, flag burning and abortion the same is true in the Republican camp.
And of course having plans are always good, especially for election strategy. I would be curious to know the Republican plan(s) for Iraq, national security and immigration, however. Bushs plan for Iraq is to remain there at least until 2009 with no more specifics than that being mentioned (stay the course). If the Dems propose that we come home in 2006 or 2007, isnt that a plan as well?
I will say that the Dems are not where they need to be to gain seats in the Congress. For 08, I can only hope that things will have changed. What a long wait until November it will be.
Here’s where I’m coming from. I think the Democrats need help. The Republicans have that evil genius Karl Rove. Who do the Democrats have? I feel sorry for them, so I figured that I would suggest a few things to them. They won’t take any of my advice anyway, so where’s the harm in it?
It’s understandable that you would be confused about which election I’m talking about, as I probably wasn’t as clear about it as I should have been. I may go back and change a few sentences here and there to make that clearer. While it may be true that Sabato’s questions are mainly directed toward the ’08 election and have more relevance to that race, I contend that some of those issues are ones that Democrats have to deal with before the midterms.
I mentioned Lamont/ Lieberman because I believe it’s relevant to the first point about ideological purity. Lamont’s main selling point to his supporters (at least the ones on the liberal blogs) is that he is against the Iraq war. While that may be enough for Connecticut voters to pick Lamont over Lieberman, it shouldn’t be the only reason they support him. I can sort of understand why the Dems on the left would be annoyed about Joe’s agreement with Bush on anything, and the Hannity official endorsement sure doesn’t help him. But he generally agrees with the left on everything else except the war. I don’t think that one single issue, even the Iraq war, should be enough to sink a guy like Lieberman.
Ok…back to the questions I should have answered. 😛 With Gore, it may have had more to do with the popularity of Bill Clinton than with Gore himself. It’s possible that many voters didn’t see anything wrong with the status quo, and there also might have been some blowback from the impeachment proceedings. Gore used to be more moderate in his views than John Kerry. I’m not sure that’s still true. I really can’t explain why people voted for Gore. It certainly wasn’t because of his magnetic personality.
Many of the votes for Kerry were votes against Bush, even some votes from more centrist voters. If it weren’t for the anti-Bush vote, who knows how close Kerry would have gotten to getting elected President? Even Democrats weren’t terribly excited about his candidacy.
As far as Republican plans, strategies, and what not…that’s what KaRl RoVe is for. I am more optimistic that the Republicans can figure out what’s wrong with their party, but I will get to strategy for them at some point. (Not that they need my advice or anything…)
I totally agree Democrats need help. We don’t have anything comparable to Karl Rove. Well, maybe. We have Carville and technically Dick Morris is a Dem, but he’s mad right now. Carville is good, but no where near as good as Rove. I see no harm in your advice whatsoever. We’ll take all the help we can muster up.
I would say that you are absolutley correct about Lieberman. But after all, elected officials are in office to represent everyone, not just the ones who elect them. And if the voters of his state (especially those of his party) feel that they are not being represented properly they will contend with him at the ballot box.
One issue voters kill me. People who vote specifically on one issue restrain the American two party system. I don’t always agree with the Dems, but in a broad spectrum I can. Though the right has their own one issue voters to deal with as well.
For Gore I think he did not do enough to relate himself to Bill Clinton. Peace, prosperity and vanguardism is a hard status quo to campaign against. Gore was not the best candidate the Dems could have chosen, but he did win more votes than Bush. Gore’s campaign could have been much better.
I think not liking a president or a candidate is absolutely a good reason not to cast a vote for them. Whether it’s an anti-Bush vote or not, Bush still just barely won against Kerry.
All I’m saying is that Dems do relate to a majority of the people just like Republicans think they do. The Dems need to do a much better job of standing up to Republicans.
But your advice is well taken. Why are you not working in the RNC?
I don’t know about Morris and his current relationship with the Democrats. Would it be fair to call him a Democrat in name only? He sure does like Republicans a whole lot…lol.
If Connecticut voters believe that Lieberman doesn’t represent them well enough, that’s a good reason to vote for someone else. I have no problem with that. It’s just that I don’t think Lamont is focusing too much on that angle. (That’s certainly not the reason for MoveOn’s endorsement of Lamont anyway…)
We shall see how much single-issue voters matter in the fall when all of those who are concerned about illegal immigration go to the polls. It’s natural to get ticked off at both parties, but at the end of the day, go with the party that you agree with the most. That’s my philosophy. I hope my fellow Republicans agree with it when they go to vote.
I didn’t notice any significant problems with Gore’s campaign. But I’m sure that you got a better look at it from an insider’s POV. Gore certainly didn’t give me any compelling reason to vote for him.
Kerry’s campaign, on the other hand, was the one I thought was mis-managed. Explain to me why we were re-fighting Vietnam when he should have been talking more about core Democratic issues like jobs, the economy, healthcare, and so forth. If it was to explain why John Kerry had credibility on national security, I’m not sure that service in Vietnam would have been enough to make that determination.
(Do I need to make the disclaimer that I’m not trying to disrespect Kerry’s Vietnam service at all? I hope not.)
Maybe the centrist Dems relate to the average person. Howard Dean and those like him…not so much.
Why am I not working for the RNC? Several reasons. They couldn’t afford me, for one thing(j/k). It would also be a long commute from South Carolina. The serious reason is because it hasn’t occurred to them to ask me. 🙂
Calling Morris a Democrat in name only is probably very accurate. The worst mistake Clinton ever made was firing him.
I’m not sure why people who might vote on the single issue of illegal immigration would eventually decide to vote Republican. After all, it is the Republicans offering amnesty, and the incompetent Republican administration that has failed to offer one single bill designed to help crack down on illegals. If people were going to vote on the single issue of illegal immigration they would vote libertarian and certainly nothing even vaguely close to the neocon controlled Republicans.– sorry this paragraph is my neocon rant–
Gore’s biggest mistake was distancing himself from Clinton. It’s understandable that he didn’t want people to think that he would continue the Clinton scandals, but Gore could have campaigned on the peace and prosperity of Clinton much better than he did. Besides, if Gore is known as anything it’s certainly not as a womanizer. Not to mention the fact that Gore did receive 51% of the vote. So maybe had Gore’s dynasty family been in charge of Florida things would be very different right now 🙂
Kerry’s campaign was a joke. It should go down in history as being the weakest, most disorganized political stump in history. And, not to mention that Kerry was a horrible candidate.
Of course centrist Dems relate to the average person. So do centrist Repubs. Right wing nut jobs like Pat Robertson, Alan Keyes, Pat Buchanan and those like them…not so much 🙂
I think you should really check into doing some work for the RNC. Or mabye even the state central committee in the state that you live. Good minds are always hard to find.
Sure. Blame the neo-cons. If it weren’t for them, I’m sure that all those who decided to sneak into this country and break our laws would be safe in their home country and cursing the day those Democrats took charge and kicked them out. There would be peace, happiness, and all-around good vibes with all foreign nations of the world. No one in government would ever overspend their budget. We would just sit around singing Kumbayah and giving thanks that the country was saved, yes SAVED from those bad ol’ neocons. Or something. (My original rant was better…)
As to your serious point, I think the Republicans are in a slightly better position on illegal immigration because of the House Republicans and their opposition to what the Senate and the President have proposed. The Democrats didn’t do much about illegal immigration either, if you want to get partisan about it. 😛 It doesn’t really matter whose fault it is, as long as we fix the problem.
I sincerely hope you are not one of those nutty conspiracy theorists who believe that the 2000 election was rigged. 🙂
I could have run Kerry’s campaign better than his people did. Ok, maybe not, but it would have been more focused if I was in charge.
I think that Republicans generally do a better job as far as marginalizing our nutcases than the Democrats do. Our strategy seems to be throwing them a bone every once in awhile to keep them happy, and making sure that they don’t control the message. That seems to work.
I’ll think about working for the RNC in some capacity. Maybe the local folks need another blogger. 🙂
Actually in my neocon rant I don’t mention anything about the Democrats. I mention the Libertarians. I do think, however, that when a certain party controls all three branches of government it’s really hard to escape the blame for failing to implement a successful policy to one of the most imminent threats facing this country. I wonder if it was brought to the neocons attention that some of the illegals entering this country might be gay if that would make them want to actually do something about it 🙂
For 2000, I believe that Gore got 51% of the vote and had the Supreme Court not ordered the recount in FL to stop, Gore would have been president. If there is a conspiracy, it’s in the astonishment that Bush thinks (or thought) he actually had political capital to spend.
But I’m not one of those who frets over 2000. I am one of those who frets over 2004. If in ’08 we nominate a liberal from New England, I am really going to have to rethink this whole party thing.
Oh, I can’t wait to read your Republican strategy post… 🙂
I don’t view the Libertarians as a viable alternative to the other two parties due to their views on drug legalization and what I consider their main weakness in a post-9/11 world…foreign policy. we can’t get rid of our nukes at this point. It’s possible I’m misinterpreting what I read from their website, but that was the impression I got from it.
I mentioned the Democrats in my rant because the Libertarians aren’t likely to crash the two-party system in elections any time soon. The Brits have more than three parties represented in Parliament, but only two have been rotating power, Labour and the Conservatives. It’s the same way here. While it’s possible that some third-party candidates may be elected to Congress, I’m not sure that there will ever be enough of them to get a majority there.
I’m sympathetic to many Libertarian arguments, but at the end of the day, I agree with Republicans a lot more on social issues and on foreign policy that I do with the Libertarians.
I would say that the results of the recount were not conclusive either way. It depends on whose report you find more accurate, I guess.
Are you talking about Warner? He’s already got the FOK (friend of Kos) endorsement. Yeah, I don’t see him having much luck either. John Kerry will not get the nomination. Neither will his “Southern” boy John Edwards. That’s a pretty solid prediction, I think, unlike some of my baseball picks. 🙂
I don’t know who the Democrats will decide on. If Obama really wants to run for President in ’08, I think that it’s a pretty wide open field right now.
I just hope the Republicans don’t blow their opportunity and pick someone like Guiliani or McCain. Romney would be ok. Even though he could never win the nomination, I still want Gingrich to stay in the chase as well. I like many of his ideas, and I think that he makes a lot of sense policy-wise. I’m really warming up to George Allen. I could see him as President.
Maybe I’ll do some candidate profiles at some point. I really haven’t been motivated to do that because ’08 is still too far away to get into that right now.
But as an alternative to the two main parties on illegal immigration, the Libertarian party would be the party that single issue illegal immigration voters would vote for– if there is such a thing that is.
I like third parties. They always bring up topics the two main parties don’t want to talk about. Without Perot, there would be no Clinton. Without Nader, there would be no Bush.
Third parties have a much bigger role historically in this country then they are given credit for. Lincoln was a third party candidate in 1860.
I have no doubts that the FL recount shows Gore in the lead. If only Gore’s brother had been the guv 🙂
I think Warner stands a chance. Plus there is Jim Webb from Virginia. Also, we can never count Obama out 😉
Unless the Dems get on course very soon like, they will lose even more seats in the House in September. This could get very ugly for the Dems.
I’m not familiar with the Libertarian position on illegal immigration. Didn’t know they had one. I guess I need to do a little homework on that.
I loved Perot. He was fun. My parents and I actually thought about voting for him. Then he turned out to be a paranoid nutcase. It is partially his fault that Clinton was elected, so I do blame him for that.
The problem I think the third parties have is the one that the Democrats have now. That is the quality and credibility of their candidates. Nader and Perot are good examples of this. Lincoln would have been the exception to the rule as a third-party candidate in today’s world.
On your suggested Dem candidates: Maybe, maybe and I could see that possibly happening. I don’t know much about Webb.
I agree with you about the Democrats. It’s kind of sad actually. That’s why I was trying to help them.