![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chhotiiJust listened to The Connection on WBUR. Dick Gordon's guests today were leaders in the Democratic Party-- not major leaders, but a couple of people in the inner circle: a speechwriter for Kerry and Gore, and head of some party committee for reaching out to women voters. Senator Graham also called in briefly. The topic was, obviously, what went wrong in this election, how did the Democrats manage to lose against the Worst President Ever.
I wanted to see if the party leadership had any promising sign of having a clue. I had hoped that this defeat would shake up some of that arrogant group-think and get these people to listen, and to think laterally.
Nope, no clue. Seems that the Democratic party is lead by an insular bunch that sits around telling each other how brilliant they are, never mind that this brilliance does not produce election victory. Things that peeved me:
* Unwillingness to admit that Kerry's message was muddled and unclear. Well, of course, one of the two guests in the studio was a Kerry speechwriter, he's not going to admit that he did a bad job. They were just like, Kerry had a great message, a strong message, blah blah blah.
* Specifically, claiming that Kerry had a strong message regarding terrorism/security/Iraq. He did not. Or if he did-- where was it hidden? They must have hidden it very very cleverly, such that even I, someone who was interested enough to go looking for this message on his website and sit through his stump speech, could not find it. He had various criticisms of how things were going in Iraq which came across as nitpicking and 20/20 hindsight. But if he had "the vision thing" wrt security policy, it sure didn't come across.
* Denying the need to educate the voters; they seem to not see any way to challenge Bush's lies. The speechwriter said it would be arrogant and condescending to try to educate the voters, as it would imply that they are ignorant. Well, he's half-way right, the Dems do need to avoid being arrogant and condescending. But they really should have done something about the fact that many many people still believe, contrary to the facts, that WMDs were found in Iraq and/or that Iraq was behind 9/11. If you believe that, then Bush's actions make sense and he seems courageous to fight that war. Kerry could have simply touched on these facts-- no WMDs, no 9/11 connection-- over and over and over again, and made them the starting point of the political discussion. There's no need to tack a "You people may not be informed enough to realize this, but..." in front of your "there were no WMDs, no 9/11 connections..."; one can talk as though presuming knowledge on the part of the listener and say "Now we all know that..." instead.
* Sort of a wimpy "me-too" stance regarding values and morals. They are starting to talk about the values thing, but they don't get it. Someone called in from a Red state, a pro-Kerry voter who had tried to talk to the guys at work about the election. He said that they all hated Bush's policies etc., but couldn't bring themselves to vote against Bush because of the gay marriage thing. Rather than try to re-frame the issue-- along the lines of "hate is not a family value"-- the Dem party folks said, we should talk about how marriage is important to us too! I.e., just buy into the way the Republicans have framed the issue. Their suggested strategy: a) cry "me too, me too!" b) point out that Kerry claims to not actually support gay marriage and c) close their eyes and hope that this issue goes away.
* Arrogance. Totally dismissing this guy who had talked to his co-workers, saying well our political scientists have done this analysis based on voting results, and it shows that gay marriage is not important. Dudes, your political scientists are not infallible, and they got enough wrong that y'all lost against the Worst President Ever. Listen to people!!!!
* The Dems still think the economy is a strong enough issue to win elections for them. Even though, um, no, it wasn't this year. They persist in believing what the on-staff political scientists have concluded rather than the evidence of what really happened in this election. Democrats won among people for whom the economy is the #1 issue, but clearly that's not enough of the electorate. This is not 1932, people. See all those people driving shiny late-model vehicles? All those people buying high-def TVs? Those people vote, and they are nonplussed by the economy-stinks message, I'm sure. Not that the economy is great-- it's not-- but not enough people are suffering enough to overlook issues such as terrorism. Or gay marriage, even.
* The Dem party looks at the huge upwelling of activism among the grassroots, the outpouring of volunteerism, and think that they have the start of something great, that this is promising for future years. A couple of criticisms of this: a) A lot of this activism was not pro-Democrat in motivation, it was anti-Bush. Now that we will never be campaigning against GWB again, how much of that energy will still be there in future years? b) Having interacted with Democratic presidential campaign staffers a few times in more than one campaign cycle, it's apparent to me that the DNC does not have a corporate culture that encourages and fosters working with volunteers. As a result, they waste money paying staffers to do too much of the work, and what would be willing volunteers either become disaffected or go volunteer with the 527s (which are great, but hampered by not being able to coordinate with the campaigns). The party realizes that the GOP has learned to do grassroots activism well, but they don't understand why the GOP is doing it better.
Such a shame that the job of opposing the Republican fuckwits is in the incapable hands of the DNC. Well, off to hell in a handbasket we go.
I wanted to see if the party leadership had any promising sign of having a clue. I had hoped that this defeat would shake up some of that arrogant group-think and get these people to listen, and to think laterally.
Nope, no clue. Seems that the Democratic party is lead by an insular bunch that sits around telling each other how brilliant they are, never mind that this brilliance does not produce election victory. Things that peeved me:
* Unwillingness to admit that Kerry's message was muddled and unclear. Well, of course, one of the two guests in the studio was a Kerry speechwriter, he's not going to admit that he did a bad job. They were just like, Kerry had a great message, a strong message, blah blah blah.
* Specifically, claiming that Kerry had a strong message regarding terrorism/security/Iraq. He did not. Or if he did-- where was it hidden? They must have hidden it very very cleverly, such that even I, someone who was interested enough to go looking for this message on his website and sit through his stump speech, could not find it. He had various criticisms of how things were going in Iraq which came across as nitpicking and 20/20 hindsight. But if he had "the vision thing" wrt security policy, it sure didn't come across.
* Denying the need to educate the voters; they seem to not see any way to challenge Bush's lies. The speechwriter said it would be arrogant and condescending to try to educate the voters, as it would imply that they are ignorant. Well, he's half-way right, the Dems do need to avoid being arrogant and condescending. But they really should have done something about the fact that many many people still believe, contrary to the facts, that WMDs were found in Iraq and/or that Iraq was behind 9/11. If you believe that, then Bush's actions make sense and he seems courageous to fight that war. Kerry could have simply touched on these facts-- no WMDs, no 9/11 connection-- over and over and over again, and made them the starting point of the political discussion. There's no need to tack a "You people may not be informed enough to realize this, but..." in front of your "there were no WMDs, no 9/11 connections..."; one can talk as though presuming knowledge on the part of the listener and say "Now we all know that..." instead.
* Sort of a wimpy "me-too" stance regarding values and morals. They are starting to talk about the values thing, but they don't get it. Someone called in from a Red state, a pro-Kerry voter who had tried to talk to the guys at work about the election. He said that they all hated Bush's policies etc., but couldn't bring themselves to vote against Bush because of the gay marriage thing. Rather than try to re-frame the issue-- along the lines of "hate is not a family value"-- the Dem party folks said, we should talk about how marriage is important to us too! I.e., just buy into the way the Republicans have framed the issue. Their suggested strategy: a) cry "me too, me too!" b) point out that Kerry claims to not actually support gay marriage and c) close their eyes and hope that this issue goes away.
* Arrogance. Totally dismissing this guy who had talked to his co-workers, saying well our political scientists have done this analysis based on voting results, and it shows that gay marriage is not important. Dudes, your political scientists are not infallible, and they got enough wrong that y'all lost against the Worst President Ever. Listen to people!!!!
* The Dems still think the economy is a strong enough issue to win elections for them. Even though, um, no, it wasn't this year. They persist in believing what the on-staff political scientists have concluded rather than the evidence of what really happened in this election. Democrats won among people for whom the economy is the #1 issue, but clearly that's not enough of the electorate. This is not 1932, people. See all those people driving shiny late-model vehicles? All those people buying high-def TVs? Those people vote, and they are nonplussed by the economy-stinks message, I'm sure. Not that the economy is great-- it's not-- but not enough people are suffering enough to overlook issues such as terrorism. Or gay marriage, even.
* The Dem party looks at the huge upwelling of activism among the grassroots, the outpouring of volunteerism, and think that they have the start of something great, that this is promising for future years. A couple of criticisms of this: a) A lot of this activism was not pro-Democrat in motivation, it was anti-Bush. Now that we will never be campaigning against GWB again, how much of that energy will still be there in future years? b) Having interacted with Democratic presidential campaign staffers a few times in more than one campaign cycle, it's apparent to me that the DNC does not have a corporate culture that encourages and fosters working with volunteers. As a result, they waste money paying staffers to do too much of the work, and what would be willing volunteers either become disaffected or go volunteer with the 527s (which are great, but hampered by not being able to coordinate with the campaigns). The party realizes that the GOP has learned to do grassroots activism well, but they don't understand why the GOP is doing it better.
Such a shame that the job of opposing the Republican fuckwits is in the incapable hands of the DNC. Well, off to hell in a handbasket we go.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 10:11 am (UTC)was so raw from my cold and from walking in the
cold air that I can't talk very well right now.
Besides, to call in to The Connection and be
effective, you really have to have the point you
want to make focused down into a soundbite-- Dick
Gordon does not tolarate any blathering, and unless
a caller is weaving a compelling narrative, he'll
interrupt the caller and try to re-focus them on
what HE thinks the thread of the conversation is.
I didn't have a soundbite ready in time.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 10:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 10:39 am (UTC)Also, I don't know if you noticed, but the Democrats mailing list sent out something encouraging people to mail them with ideas about where they went wrong and how they might improve things. From the mail I got: Worth a shot, anyway.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-09 11:32 am (UTC)a big fat shot of I-told-you-so :)
I did rant extensively on that feedback form. I
hope other people with opinions about what went
wrong fill it out too, they need to hear the full
range of what the rest of us have to say!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-10 07:49 pm (UTC)