Strategy for Democrats
 

Link

Cliff's notes on link: A liberal challenger is challenging the incumbent Democrat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senate primary. The article notes that the challenger has taken a lead in the polls. The main issue in this race is the perception among CT liberals that Lieberman is too close to the Bush administration and pro-Iraq war.

I am wondering whether a staunchly anti-war platform would be a winning strategy for the Democrats in the general election. 55% of Americans want troops out of Iraq within the next year Link. Some moderate Democrats believe that the "Triangulation" strategy of Bill Clinton to adopt the issues of your opponents to woo centrist voters is the best strategy, while John Kerry and others have become more dovish on the matter. What do you think?

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Note: These comments are not specific to the current war, just general war vs. anti-war views and the voters preception.

The reason that most anti-war platforms don't work for most Democrats is that despite the fact that the majority of the electorate might agree with them it makes them look like wimps.

People want strong leaders and being anti-war makes you look a little wimpy. What they need to do is not be so much anti-war, but anti-policy. Talk about how the policy is not working and then what they would do to correct the problem without seeming anit-war.

Of course a big problem for Democrats is that their base is usually anti-war and they have to play to that to get nominated. It hurts them in the general election, because if they change their anti-war platform they look like more of wimps for flip-flopping.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

The Dems need to pose an alternative policy mix for dealing with Iraq, rather than come out out as strongly against.

Also, they really do need to quit catering to the far left. BluffTHIS said in another thread, and Im just going to paraphrase, but basically a moderate Democrat in the mold of Liberman could easily get my vote. Basically Im looking for a Scoop Jackson type Democrat, but I dont see that candidate appearing any time in the near future.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I see one on TV every day: Hillary Clinton. Seriously. Hillary is way to the right of the Democratic Base on foreign policy, Iraq, values issues and possibly even taxes. Granted, she would never pass as an actual conservative because she is pro-choice but she is definately the most moderate candidate in the early Democratic field. Her liberalism on health care seems to be in the past as well. However, I would much rather vote for someone like the current version of John Kerry, who is making a lot more sense on Iraq than he did in 2004.

Also, I really don't see any significant, creative changes the Democrats could offer on Iraq besides "stay the course" and pulling out. The only options that anyone cares about in Iraq are: more troops, same number of troops or less troops.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hillary Clinton. Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

As soon as the Democrats nominate her the GOP will be dancing in the streets. Seriously.

Within two weeks you'll be hearing about how she fathered a black child and personally performed abortions in the back of an ACLU lawyer's office.

NT

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

This is one reason that I don't like Hillary, that she comes with too much baggage. The irrational hatred from the right toward her is as high as the hatred from the left toward Bush, and Bush has done a lot more to hate since he is the President. This is bizarre to me because Hillary in the most conservative major player in the Democratic Party, so you think the conservatives would at least be able to tolerate here like they tolerate Lieberman. The other reason I don't like her is that Hillary is too conservative for me. I was just saying that Hillary is the standard bearer for the moderate wing of the Democratic Party.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Hillary has been very visibly 'moving' right for quite some time now, basically since Bill left the White House. The health care thing was one of the biggest planks in their platform and well known as her pet issue... now she has dropped it since they got crushed on it and nobody supports it. Even to a lot of Democrats it feels like posturing, and of course the right LOVES it because they've been accusing her of coveting the presidency for over a decade.

Add to this that she is a woman (no chance), that her husband was impeached and she will be tied to every scandal in that White House all over again, that she is a Senator and they typically fare worse than state-level executives, and that she is from the northeast, and you pretty much have a recipe for losing an election that the Democrats have no business losing.

NT

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Hillary's move to the right is simply strategic positioning. She's very liberal.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

As long as Howard Dean is the head of the party, you guys have no chance. None.

And how many time does Hillary have to say it? "I'm not running"

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hillary's move to the right is simply strategic positioning. She's very liberal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I agree with NT concerning the problems with Hillary running. But I am not so sure that Hillary's heart is with the Left. I have more faith than most people when it concerns politicians and I believe that Pols mouths are almost always within the vicinity of their hearts. I also come from the same hometown as Hillary, where she was a Young Republican. Plus, even if Hillary were a closet liberal, if she ever won she would probably continue to govern toward the middle similar to her husband. Oh, and:

[ QUOTE ]
As long as Howard Dean is the head of the party, you guys have no chance. None.

[/ QUOTE ]
ORLY?

Edit: I think this thread will be a good early test whether Politics will work well here. Hillary inspires a lot of anger in this country and if this forum can handle a Hillary debate it can handle anything.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
As long as Howard Dean is the head of the party, you guys have no chance. None.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the kind of thing I want to keep out of TLDR. This sort of "Us Vs. Them" crap is pointless and promotes flaming, not discussion. Consider this fair warning.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as Howard Dean is the head of the party, you guys have no chance. None.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the kind of thing I want to keep out of TLDR. This sort of "Us Vs. Them" crap is pointless and promotes flaming, not discussion. Consider this fair warning.

[/ QUOTE ]
Although I am fine with this and will try to lead discussion away from this direction in the future:

[ QUOTE ]
We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

First. CNN = Clinton News Network.

Second. My comment was a simple answer to the original question. Strategy for the Dems? Dean will be your downfall. My prediction is Dean will be replaced before then 2008 elections.

"The guy is an idiot." <<< That's a quote from my dear mom who is a national delagate from Minnesota! The most liberal state this side of New York!

Ok, That will probably be my last post re: politics. Back to poker.

Thanks.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Actually, I think a lot of the success of political posts in TLDR is going to hinge on the absence of "sides" in a thread. Look at the start of this one. People started out thoughtfully discussing how to improve the Democrat's position in the latest election, and it seemed to be pretty reasonable. However, when it degenerates into "sides," it starts to look like everything that non-Politards hate about the late Politics forum. I don't care if the sides are Repubs vs. Dems, conservatives vs. liberals, Roe vs. Wade, Israelis vs. Arabs, chocolate vs. vanilla, or Kirk vs. Picard, the more "sides" face off, the less welcome politics will be in TLDR or any other forum.

I think the more polarized political threads become, the more opportunity there is for hurling insults, cheap shots, and inflammatory remarks at the expense of well-natured discussion.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Add to this that she is a woman (no chance), that her husband was impeached and she will be tied to every scandal in that White House all over again, that she is a Senator and they typically fare worse than state-level executives, and that she is from the northeast, and you pretty much have a recipe for losing an election that the Democrats have no business losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will look back sadly on this great summary when I am watching Hilary accept the Dem nomination [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

-Al

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Which is it?

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

TC - I think it's kind of a no-brainer that Hilary moving to the right is much less about her political philosophy, and much more about positioning herself for a run at the White House.

-Al

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the more polarized political threads become, the more opportunity there is for hurling insults, cheap shots, and inflammatory remarks at the expense of well-natured discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put.

All, be familiar with the punishment system given in the sticky on this forum. We ban here for banworthy posts only, but we are more free in giving out suspensions to rule-breakers than other forums, and each suspension given to an individual can only get longer than the last one. Once you've been suspended for a day (a 'b1'), your next one will be AT LEAST a b2 - and the number only gets bigger.

Why do we do this? To educate as well as punish. Time away tends to focus the mind.

Bear all this in mind when you see something that makes you angry and you are preparing to reply without thinking through the consequences...10 minutes away from the forum cooling down might be better than a day or two locked out, right?

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
First. CNN = Clinton News Network.

Second. My comment was a simple answer to the original question. Strategy for the Dems? Dean will be your downfall. My prediction is Dean will be replaced before then 2008 elections.

"The guy is an idiot." <<< That's a quote from my dear mom who is a national delagate from Minnesota! The most liberal state this side of New York!

Ok, That will probably be my last post re: politics. Back to poker.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make any more, I or another mod will suspend you for at least 5 days.

I'm leaving this post as an example of what NOT to post here. This guy was lucky, Wookie gave him a warning not to post again before I saw it, otherwise he'd have got at least a few days away from posting. Look and learn, people.

db

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I opted to just give him a warning because not only was he a first time offender, but it was really the first politics offense in this forum. Subsequent trolling in political threads will be dealt with using suspensions.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I am targeting this post at Politics regulars.

We have a big challenge ahead of us. We are used to looser modding in Politics than Diebetter and Wookie want. Things are going to be tighter than they were under [censored], if that is possible. I want politics in TLDR to succeed, and to do this, we are really going to have to elevate our discussion. I personally didn't see anything wrong with TBZ's post, but my opinion doesn't count.

I encourage all people who post in political threads to Please put some thought into your posts. You will have a lot better experience, you will learn more, and you won't get us kicked out. Thanks.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I think what is needed here in TLDR re: political is less set-your-hair-on-fire-and-wave-your-arms style of debate, and more thoughtful, meaningful discussion. Think Sunday morning talk shows, not Crossfire.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First. CNN = Clinton News Network.

Second. My comment was a simple answer to the original question. Strategy for the Dems? Dean will be your downfall. My prediction is Dean will be replaced before then 2008 elections.

"The guy is an idiot." <<< That's a quote from my dear mom who is a national delagate from Minnesota! The most liberal state this side of New York!

Ok, That will probably be my last post re: politics. Back to poker.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make any more, I or another mod will suspend you for at least 5 days.

I'm leaving this post as an example of what NOT to post here. This guy was lucky, Wookie gave him a warning not to post again before I saw it, otherwise he'd have got at least a few days away from posting. Look and learn, people.

db

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, reasoned, intelligent posting is admirable.

But treating posters like naughty school-children is going to accomplish the opposite of what you want. More forums implode from poor moderating, than from trolls (and I'm not calling anyone a troll).

That said, what the Democrats really need... are some balls. They need to stand up to the likes of Rush and his sycophants and FOXNews and their shallow (but amazingly effective) tactics.

People tend to look up to those who aren't afraid to speak their minds. Too often, the weak-minded among us tend to (mis)interpret reasoned, intelligent opinons and positions as weak, or wishy-washy.

When Democrats (or at least one Democrat) is willing to stand up and call a spade a spade, they'll have what they need to start winning elections.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

You and I are on the same wavelength. The personification of what you are talking about is Dean, which is why he was selected to run the DNC. But since he is at the DNC, we can probably rule him out as a candidate. I have been hearing good things from John Kerry on this front. I think he learned from his mistakes from the last election and is becoming more forceful criticizing Republicans. Al Gore seems to get it too, but to be honest, I haven't been hearing as much from him. The main problem with Kerry is that the GOP still has that "I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" clip in their vault. The main problem with Gore is that I think he has gotten a little flakier since 2000.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First. CNN = Clinton News Network.

Second. My comment was a simple answer to the original question. Strategy for the Dems? Dean will be your downfall. My prediction is Dean will be replaced before then 2008 elections.

"The guy is an idiot." <<< That's a quote from my dear mom who is a national delagate from Minnesota! The most liberal state this side of New York!

Ok, That will probably be my last post re: politics. Back to poker.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make any more, I or another mod will suspend you for at least 5 days.

I'm leaving this post as an example of what NOT to post here. This guy was lucky, Wookie gave him a warning not to post again before I saw it, otherwise he'd have got at least a few days away from posting. Look and learn, people.

db

[/ QUOTE ]
If I might make a suggestion, I think this experiment might go more smoothly if posters like the above are just exiled after the first or second post. Possibly let them come back and try again a few days/weeks later. To be honest, I don't think any poster that will make a post like that can be constructive, and it only serves to sidetrack the entire discussion.

I really don't think the forum (politics or otherwise) would lose much, if anything, by just giving them the boot right away. Either way, thanks for letting the experiment happen at all!

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I believe that I speak for all the mods here when I say that we're not at all concerned about this forum imploding by overly angering the exiled Politards. Quite frankly, it's the position of many posters here and many mods of all forums that Politics was closed for good reason, and that 2+2 should not be home to any of the detritus lurking there. Few are thrilled about having the unsavory portions spill into their home forums. Exhibit A: OOT.

Instead, I figure there must have been something worth reading there, and some discussion that didn't inherently make blood boil. If that's the case, then TLDR is probably the best home for it outside of Politics. However, TLDR has a pretty well established base of posters who, like OOT, don't really want to deal with all the crap and bickering. DB and I have been using this thread, I believe the second political TLDR post, to start laying out some ground rules. What you call pedantic scolding, I call showing examples for clear guidelines in the future. I don't intend to publicly scold every marginal political post in the future, but while it's early, it's best to get the word out.

Posts like the one DB highlighted may look pretty harmless to Politics veterans who've come to expect that sort of thing, but it's exactly what people in TLDR, OOT, and elsewhere dislike the most about Politics: name calling, unfounded accusations, and thoughtless speculation. No, it's not even why the forum was closed, but it IS why politics was segregated off to its own are. What has been par for the coarse won't cut it any longer. If political discussion is going to continue here, it's going to have to shake off the aspects of it less politically minded people dislike the most. In this forum, it's going to need to be positive, constructive, well-mannered, polite, and thoughtful instead of being negative, inflammatory, curt, and wrought with unsupported accusations. If it turns out that political discussion is inseparable from its unsavory side, no, DB and I aren't concerned about this forum "imploding." It's a much bigger concern that the Politard-trolls will drive off the people who've enjoyed this forum and made it what it is. In the event they become too prevalent, it'll be easy enough to impliment an OOT-esque moratorium on the subject. If that has to be supported with suspensions, bannings, or IP bannings because some trolls can't give it up, so be it.

So far, I've read some very interesting political posts in here, and I don't mind seeing it continue. However, everyone else who's enjoyed them along with me should take heed of the standards layed out here. Times have changed pretty dramatically.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I think it's important to understand that political parties in the country are not anywhere close to being unitary actors. This especially applies to the Democrats. It's really a symptom of the structure of our political system -- different things work in different districts. A "national strategy" might work for the base, to get out the vote in close races or national elections (and perhaps a few Senatorial ones), but getting elected, especially for House memebers, is more about their district than it is about what is going on in country as a whole. The adage about people having Congress but liking their Congressman is totally accurate.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Am i the only who thinks Dean has done a really good job? And that Pelosi and Reids anger towards him is very misplaced? I really like what hes doing fund raising wise, and taking every single race seriously.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am i the only who thinks Dean has done a really good job? And that Pelosi and Reids anger towards him is very misplaced? I really like what hes doing fund raising wise, and taking every single race seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

His fundraising skills are poor. His infatuation with grassroots organizing has led to him ignoring big donors, who have in turn become wary of giving to the DNC while Dean is in control.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think a lot of the success of political posts in TLDR is going to hinge on the absence of "sides" in a thread. Look at the start of this one. People started out thoughtfully discussing how to improve the Democrat's position in the latest election, and it seemed to be pretty reasonable. However, when it degenerates into "sides," it starts to look like everything that non-Politards hate about the late Politics forum. I don't care if the sides are Repubs vs. Dems, conservatives vs. liberals, Roe vs. Wade, Israelis vs. Arabs, chocolate vs. vanilla, or Kirk vs. Picard, the more "sides" face off, the less welcome politics will be in TLDR or any other forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

Great so Politics discussion is A-Ok if it is compeletely milquetoast and no one "takes sides". That is a completely ridiculous stance. Im quite on board with being against trolling, name calling etc. But being forced into some sort vanilla posting style frankly appeals to me none at all. So here is one less Politics poster now, sure that will make a lot of the mods quite happy.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Well, it's quite possible my opinion on this subject is not fully mature, and particularly that my language was not perfectly formed. The thing we most want to avoid here is the closed-minded arguing that accomplishes nothing. It's not so much "having" sides in a thread or a discussion that's the issue. It's more "taking" sides, if you catch my drift. It's not disagreeing with someone else in a thread, it's villainizing them, rallying the troops to your cause, and turning it into a contest of wills. If you're following this, great. If you still disagree, I'd like to hear what you have to say on the issue, and what sorts of guidelines you'd suggest. All of the mods (this forum and otherwise) are working pretty hard to get clear guidelines hammered out that will be acceptable to the prior core of this forum and to political exiles who wish to engage in some reasonable discussion. Your input is appreciated.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Wookie,

As vulturesrow said, there is a certain amount of partisan posturing that is inherent in any political discussion. And as far as "rallying the troops", that is exactly what is the purpose of political debate, i.e. to try persuade others to your views for electoral purposes. Obviously this should be done through honest debate that doesn't inentionally seek to mislead or misrepresent.

Also, "villainizing" political figures is should also part of the political discourse but it should not be dont through just a bunch of trollish one-liners or inflammatory statements with no facts or reasoning to back it up.

Examples:

"George Bush is an idiot and should be impeaced" - if that's it then such a post is not appropriate unless clearly being humourous.

But if such a statement is made, along with some current news to support it as well as reasonable facts and evidence showing both that he has committed an impeachable offense, or has a history of actions of which the newest is further evidence, then such a post should likely be allowed.

Of course as a repub I wouldn't say that. I would be more likely to say "Hillary is a lying b----", (which I believe to be true), but I wouldn't say it without backing it up through multiple examples, although of course others might not agree with my interpretations, weighting of the facts, or the credence placed in various news sources.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Bluff,

I don't think the Harvard debate club would be calling Hillary names (feel free to prove me wrong)...

I think one of the things Wookie is asking for is to raise the level of discussion/debate a bit, beyond the name calling stage.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Bluff and Sniper,

There's a big difference in my mind between "George Bush is an idiot and should be impeached because..." and "George Bush should be impeached because..." Even with a reasonable explanaition, the name calling of Bush is completely unnecessary in the former. Same goes for, "Hillary is a lying b---- because..." versus "Hillary lied about..." Name calling is completely unnecessary and will not be tolerated here.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

I think what Wookie means is that this forum is more about discussion, analysis, and objectivity than it is about arguement. Disagreement is fine, indeed unavoidable sometimes, but partisanship and ideological loyalties are not constructive to thoughtful dialog. If you think of this as milquetoast, well this is likely not the place for you.

There is quite a difference between deep political thought and expressions of political ideology/partisanship. The former is much more refined and thoughtful. The latter inhibits critical thought. Political postings here should (to use some conservative examples) be more indicative of George Will or Bill Bennett, and less so of Charles Krauthammer or Rush Limbaugh.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bluff and Sniper,

There's a big difference in my mind between "George Bush is an idiot and should be impeached because..." and "George Bush should be impeached because..." Even with a reasonable explanaition, the name calling of Bush is completely unnecessary in the former. Same goes for, "Hillary is a lying b---- because..." versus "Hillary lied about..." Name calling is completely unnecessary and will not be tolerated here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Rule 1 in the sticky has been updated to make this absolutely clear.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
there is a certain amount of partisan posturing that is inherent in any political discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would just like to express that I believe this statement is 100% unequivocally untrue. As I just expressed, there is a certain high mindedness to political discussion at the higher levels that completely transcends the crudeness of mass ideologies and partisan loyalties.

EDIT: the topic the OP presented was the perfect example of how partisanship leads to a degrading of debate. He asked for strategy for the Democrats in the upcoming elections. Someone ended up calling CNN the "Clinton News Network!"

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

Back on track.......

[ QUOTE ]
…….I think he learned from his mistakes from the last election and is becoming more forceful criticizing Republicans.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sums up the biggest error the democrats are making. All they are doing is criticizing the republicans and the President in particular. News flash to Howard Dean, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton; Bush isn’t running again.

One on my clients is a major democrat policy wonk and we have some interesting discussions; She’s frustrated by the fact that the major Dem players don’t seem able to come up with any positive ideas that can be turned into election planks. Instead they seem to have a Pavlovian response to the name “Bush”. We can be having a reasonable dialogue and all I have to do is push the “Bush” button and she just goes on insta-tilt; spouting all kinds of hate filled rhetoric. They seem to understand that this isn’t playing well in the fly over states and with mainstream America but they just don’t seem to be able to help themselves.

The biggest threat that the democrats hold for taking back the White House is Mark Warner. Notice he’s been flying a pretty low profile in the party lately to not associate himself with the more extreme elements of the party. Clinton has too much baggage and has demonstrated that she’s willing to say/do anything to get elected. In addition I suspect her carpet bag Senator from NY routine; while doing OK in NY, has only served to deepen the polarization about her in mainstream America. If Dean is still chairman in late 2007 look for her to begin shifting her image to the left.

Re: Strategy for Democrats
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Am i the only who thinks Dean has done a really good job? And that Pelosi and Reids anger towards him is very misplaced? I really like what hes doing fund raising wise, and taking every single race seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

His fundraising skills are poor. His infatuation with grassroots organizing has led to him ignoring big donors, who have in turn become wary of giving to the DNC while Dean is in control.

[/ QUOTE ]

So him breaking fundraising records for the DNC in a Non Presidental Cycle is no good? He should do better then that? I believe he has like doubled or something like that the ammount that was taken in in 02. He has been very good at raising money.