Re: 50 state strategy

At 1/10/2005 11:33:12 AM, Kyle Michaelis said...

50 state platform for a 50 state party??? Uh-oh, sounds like this Bredesen fellow is a DEMOCRAT IN NAME ONLY. He just wants us to be BUSH LITE. Well, those of us in the DEMOCRAT WING OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY won't tolerate any of this DLC-STYLE appeasement of our CORPORATE CRONY/RELIGOUS FUNDAMENTALIST enemies. They're all evil - Evil, I tell you. EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!

All kidding aside, I don't think the national party platform is too much of a problem. It should tend towards inclusiveness, but how Democrats represent themselves in the House and Senate is a lot more important than any platform. Where the Democrats make a stand, roll over, compromise, and introduce ideas of their own says more about who we are as a party than a non-enforceable retread of past policy positions that runs through hundreds of revisions and rewrites to pander and appease the party faithful on personal pet issues.

We don't need to start from scratch or lose what spine we have to open in-roads and become competitive. We can win with a better message and better messengers. Of course, stripping ourselves down to the barest essentials to reveal those issues that truly define us would probably be a damn good idea that would make it a lot easier. All that would require is moderating stances on some issues while becoming more HARDLINE on others (i.e. social security and progressive taxation)...becoming a better stream-lined beast.

Party flexibility is not a bad thing. Elected representatives first responsibility is always to their constituents. That shouldn't be a problem unless we make it one by our contempt for those whose votes we seek. Maybe we need to stop telling people who we are and start showing them where we stand. Actions speak louder than politicing.

As for a 50 state plan, it's absurd not to try. If our first priority is Electoral College votes, the American people will vote in-kind - mainly, as if they're being used and don't appreciate it. The reality of the Electoral college should be part of campaign strategizing but should NEVER be so glaringly obvious as it was in 2004. John Kerry could have spent another month in Ohio and it wouldn't have done him any good. If fact, it probably would have cost him 10% of the vote he did get in that state.

The lesson we've refused to learn from November is that grassroots flooding of a few states is NOT the way to win an election. Out-of-state campaign workers are great when no one knows they're from out-of-state, but the second voters know these are legions of paid canvassers from across the country knocking on their doors fatigue and cynicism set in. That fundamental hope that politics is local and more than a money game has been shattered. The grassroots, by definition, is LOCAL - your friends and neighbors. Move-On, ACT, DFA - these are networks, glorified special interest groups, DLCs of a different breed. They can do some good, but they're not our saviors and they certainly aren't the future. Like the Internet itself, they're an over-hyped by-product of our cheap desire for THE NEXT BIG THING, when what we need more than anything else is to get back to basics and reconnect with the American people. That means a HUMAN connection based on common principles...not daily e-mails to meet fund-raising goals (though those have their place as well).

Nebraska Democratic Party Blog: Open Thread...