Actually, the real problem that the Democrats have

… is that the people who understand why the Democrats lost so badly in 2004 are either Republicans or other people generally ignored by the Democrats.

I remember begging my friends for months leading up to the election to see why their actions (intended to unseat Bush) guaranteed a Bush victory, and I failed utterly to convince them.

What actions, in particular?

Secret meetings with HRose for a start.

I think opposing Bush was pretty much central to all of them.

Anyway, what I usually see is a bunch of whining about how some radical group only slightly associated to the Democratic party be held up as an example of how out of the mainstream they really are. Like Act Up! and so on.

The thing I’ve heard before is “because you are pro-gay marriage and pro-choice and anti-huge corporate tax cuts!”

Which basically boils down to “the reason you didn’t get elected is because you didn’t change every one of your stances to match the Republican ones.”

In one sentence, they made beating George W. Bush their top priority.

In one sentence, they made beating George W. Bush their top priority.[/quote]

I can actually agree with that.

In one sentence, they made beating George W. Bush their top priority.[/quote]

Huh?

Huh?[/quote]

Instead of bringing bold and inspiring ideas to the table, they brought vitriol.

Huh?[/quote]

Instead of bringing bold and inspiring ideas to the table, they brought vitriol.[/quote]

The Republican win was due to doing both of these things simultaneously. The Dems were weak, weak, weak, and need to GROW SOME FUCKING SPINES.

In one sentence, they made beating George W. Bush their top priority.[/quote]

Huh?[/quote]

In February of 2004, they decided, as a group, to vote for Kerry because in head-to-head polls, he had the best chance of defeating Bush. Up until that point, they had been ardent Dean supporters – even after Iowa.

It is not who they voted for that matters, but why they did it. At that moment, they eliminated all issues from the election, and made it about a man. Bumper stickers on both sides reflected that this was the real issue: You saw either stickers with a W on it, or stickers with a W with a red line through it.

You want to know what a moral issue is? I’ll give you one moral issue: Abandoning your heartfelt beliefs for spite is immoral. Compromising your values to bring a man down is immoral.

It’s also bad politics.

The minute they did this, they (and hundreds of thousands like them) made the election about Bush. And at that point – February – Bush won the campaign.

I believe that the spining process is occuring even as we speak.

Hate to break this to you, but every 2nd-term election is about the incumbent. What, Kerry was supposed to go on about his specific plans without referencing how Bush 2 fucked everything up? I’m not sure I see any difference between Clinton '92 & Kerry '00 on that angle.

That’s a strange non-sequitur between your first and second sentence.

I don’t think you get it.

You’re right, I don’t. Were we supposed to studiously frame it as “boy, look at all this bad stuff that happened!” without talking about who was involved?

Did we spend all of our time making snarky personal criticisms of Bush? No. It was all policy.

You’re right, I don’t. Were we supposed to studiously frame it as “boy, look at all this bad stuff that happened!” without talking about who was involved?

Don’t change the subject. You are talking about campaign strategy. The election was over in February of 2004, before the campaign even began.

The difference between 1992 and 2004 is key:

Clinton '92 was about “The Economy, Stupid.”

Kerry '04 was about getting rid of George W. Bush.

In 1992, people were upset with George H. W. Bush because of the economy.

In 2004, people were upset about Iraq because of George W. Bush.

Kerry’s supporters nominated him over all others because he was the Not George W. Bush most likely to defeat George W. Bush according to early polls. (He didn’t even oppose the invasion of Iraq.) Not Being George W. Bush was the basis for Kerry’s support, which undermined any message he could have used to woo Bush supporters over to his side. So campaign strategy became irrelevant. Even if Kerry does send out a message that could woo Bush supporters – which he did not even attempt – his base of supporters would scare them back to Bush:

“You should vote for my candidate.”
“Why?”
“Because your candidate is evil.”

Not a very effective way to win hearts and minds, which is how one wins an election.

[size=2]Don’t blame me. I voted for Mack Brown.[/size]

That’s a strange non-sequitur between your first and second sentence.

I don’t think you get it.[/quote]

I think he means Clinton '96 and Kerry '04. That would make much more sense.

In 92 Clinton ran against the second term of Bush I; in 2000 Kerry ran against the second term of Bush II.

In 2004, people were upset about Iraq because of George W. Bush.

You really believe this? That people weren’t upset about Iraq because we’re fucking losing - they just don’t like anything Bush does!

Must be why the Democrats based their 2002 congressional campaigns on opposition to the war in Afghanistan. After all, they don’t like anything Bush does!

Actually, the real problem that the Democrats have…

…is that they are thinking about positioning instead of getting back down into the trenches, getting their hair mussed and their hands dirty and standing up for liberty, real democracy, justice, compassion, tolerance, education, equal rights, the environment, fairness, openness, accountability, creativity, the arts, a war not vs. oil-controlling despots but vs. things like poverty and lack of education.

They’re so wrapped up in their own little game that they’ve forgotten how to kick ass with liberal causes.

I agree with Rich… good points.

The Democrats in general don’t seem to have passion for their positions on the issues. Its ok to be Conservative… the Democrats seem to have forgotten that its ok to be Liberal. The Liberal worldview is still very much valid, very much important, even without Neocon antics. Why don’t the Democrats seem to believe that?