So where do we go from here? We pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and start again -- smarter, more focused, more effective, and as unified as we were on Monday. Here are the beginnings of some thoughts on what we need to do.
There are two ways to look at the election we've just lost...
First: "George Bush's presidency was the most disastrous in American history. The war's lousy, the economy's lousy, the war on terror's not going well. And he still beat us. We must suck."
Second: "Name a recent President that failed to be re-elected when he sought another term during a time of war. You can't. (Yes, LBJ walked away, but Iraq isn't perceived by the voters as Vietnam, isn't accompanied by riots in the streets, assassinations, and the general collapse of Western civilization -- yet.)
Looking back, I think the second view is more realistic. Clearly, Americans never bought into Bush as a disaster (and the competence argument just didn't stick, any more than it did for Michael Dukakis in '88). They look at the "forest," and say -- to paraphrase one recent letter to my local paper -- "We haven't been attacked on our home turf since 9/11/01. Who would've thought that was possible? He must be doing something right."
I've often been tempted to say that Bush was "imprinted" on the American people after 9/11 like the first living thing a baby duck sees after its birth. And lots of us like to talk about cognitive dissonance -- or pure stupidity on the part of the voters. But let's be clear: calling the voters idiots will never be a winning strategy.
So where do we go from here?
Some things I think we ought to quickly agree upon.
#1. We need to make permanent the new institutions we've just created to support the election. Kerry did not lose because of MoveOn, ACT, et al. Rather, he would have lost by a landslide had they not existed. The same kind of coordination needs to continue. If in fact the President had the 1.4 million volunteers he claimed yesterday, then we were out-volunteered and we need to lift our game even further. That'll be even harder even if we have to start from scratch all over again. (Just now, I heard that ACT et al helped draw 200,000 voters more than GWB got in '00 -- but the difference was Bush's ground game.)
A side note: I spent my election day canvassing in Pennsylvania. I kept waiting for someone to ask me for my annotated walksheets so they could track who's likely to support them next time around. Nobody did. I worry: is that info being lost all over America? These organizations need to be big in the mid-terms, with or without the help of folks like George Soros.
#2. It's time to stop dumping on youth. From the polls I've seen so far, 18-29 voters were the only ones that went with Kerry, and for the first time ever, they voted in the same percentages as everyone else. That is huge progress. To say that young voters didn't matter is false, and trashes one of the few things that went right this time around. We need instead to build on what we did.
#3. We need to be candidates. And we need to encourage our best candidates to stay engaged and run again. One of the best things Kos did this cycle was to promote fighting and funding races even against titans like DeLay. Again, we don't see the results, but we need to build on the beginnings we've made. This takes years, even decades. If Morrison runs in '06, he'll do better. If things go badly for the Republicans (quite possible, given the history of 2nd term midterm-elections), he could even win.
Where we had a great candidate who came close, his/her organization needs to be kept alive, and if there are ways we can help them do that, we should. For folks who want to nurture a third-party option -- in selected districts where it'll help more than hurt -- pursue cross-endorsements with the Greens.
#4. Competence is not a winning issue for the same reason that policy resonates less than values. (Generalizations follow.) The American people are not convinced they can judge competence. Nor are they convinced that a competent president or the right public policies will make a positive difference in their lives, because they don't believe that even the best government can help them. This is a legacy of the collapse of faith in the government that started in the late `60s, accelerated in the `70s, and became accepted as gospel in the 80s under Reagan, with no objection from Democrats.
In contrast, making laws against gay marriage is something they believe the government can do. Anyone can pass a law -- even a politician. That's why "values" issues often cut deeper than "economic interest" issues. And this doesn't appear to be new in American history.
Part of the solution, as Democrats have fitfully realized, is to frame their messages in terms of values. One term I like is "stewardship," a term that comes right out of bible study, and we ought to be using to promote environmentalism, deficit reduction, education -- the whole "seamless web" of policies that protect America's future. And don't hesitate to use fear when it's appropriate -- for instance, in the case of the administration's catastrophically weak policies on nuclear proliferation. But -- and here's the hard fact I don't have a solution for -- reframing what we already want to do in better language is probably not enough. Just as there was no possible "reframing" for the gun control issue.
#5. Which takes me to another point: the southern vs. non-southern strategies. We won no states in the South, no states in the Southwest (where Hispanic voters didn't come through) and no states between the Gateway Arch and the West Coast. As we saw quickly last night, there is absolutely no margin for error in such a situation. There is simply no choice but to go after some of these states, hard. Take your pick: border states, southwest, both. They'll all be hard -- harder than ever -- but there is no alternative. And that is gonna have to shape your approach to picking candidates and messages. Run 1,000 simulations of the 2008 election and you will not find one in which Hillary Clinton can be elected President. John Edwards as a VP candidate is, regrettably, not enough.
Given the imperfect candidates we had to choose from, my sense is Kerry had the best shot and ran the best possible campaign. Both Dean and Clark are better candidates now than they were in February: they both learned a lot. Of the two, personally, I think Clark's far more strongly positioned, because he speaks to the patriotism of Democratic values and Democratic fairness more effectively than just about anyone else. But that's a long way off, and an issue for another day...