Congressional Races. State Attorney Generals. 2006.
Which national electoral strategy should sweep the nation and define as many races as possible?
There are four choices below. Don't get too stuck on any of the descriptors; this isn't about regions or candidates.
Blue. Pro-labor union. Fair trade to protectionist. Inclined toward strong defense position, but significantly less aggressive. Active involvement in shaping society legislatively, controlling everything potentially harmful. Big but efficient government. Tends to be aligned with the struggling masses and does not seek much republican crossover. "Rust Belt, Urban." Think Gephardt, Gore 2.0.
Red. Pro-corporate, pro-freetrade. Pro capital puinishment, unquestioningly pro-Israel. Inclined to agree on Bush foreign policy. Energetic government. Seeks republican crossover through close kinship on many issues. Nevertheless is aligned with the middle class. Somewhat "Southern." Bill Clinton, but also Lieberman, New Democrats.
Purple. Moderate positions. Slow change, but sells that as "responsive," meaning straddling both resistance and change. Not driven by ideology, conservative or liberal. Inclined to seek republican crossover via contrast issues like pro-stem cell research, but also deploying rightwing talking points. "Coastal." As typified by Hillary/Pelosi, Kerry.
Blue-Green. Environmental. Socially libertarian. Small government. Looser on gun control and drug war. Fiscal responsibility paramount. Gets republican crossover through contrast with Republican Party on constitutional, budgetary, and conservation issues. "Western." Feingold, Schweitzer, and even Naderesque.
Okay we've had a lot of 2008 action and I've partaken, but its a shell game with no nut, an unrewarding exercize. Let's play one that can help us win in the short term, and by extension 2008.
The Straw Polling creates some clear categories, I find. You may think this or that candidate fits better into a particular bloc than I do, but there are three ways for Democrats to run right now. I want to know, in the poll below, which you feel we should advance nationally. Of course different races have different demands, regionally and per candidate. For clarity, I'm leaving governor's races out of this; this is about the Senate and House, and to a lesser extent state Attorney Generals.
Ok, here's an easy one. If you want Wes Clark to be President it should be your mission in life to see him elected to high office in 2006, sans a promise not to run. Likewise, if you are unhappy with the current crop of "viables," 2006 is pretty much the only way to get a new contender. All the fantasies of running Newman, Redford, Clooney, Pitt, Lucas... Either draft them for a race for dog catcher on up, or quit dreaming. The Spitzers, Schweitzers, and others would need some serious grooming, not just packaging. Pitch them some national-profile softballs that they can hit out of the park.
Meanwhile, it really all comes down to a national strategy. We need to run on ideas, not on men or women. Look at Camelot. Lyndon Johnson knew what to do with desegregation (if not Vietnam) after Kennedy was shot because Kennedy stood for a set of ideas. We should have a winning set of goals, and strategy for advancing them, which goes beyond politicians.
A vote in this prior
POLL, wherein I've broken down the straw poll presidential candidates into similar columns, would be helpful as well.