Remember Goldwater

Don't ignore history.

In 1964, the Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater by 23 points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn't give up. They didn't spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon crushed Humphrey in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose Bush, now isn't the time to feel sorry for yourself. Now is the time to get to work.

Read my column today in the Guardian. I was barely awake when I wrote it late last night, so it may not be my cleanest work, but the sentiments are valid.

We put together an unprecedented ground operation, but it was matched by the zealots on the right. We experienced an explosion in the blog world and started a nascent liberal radio network, but our message machine was far outmatched by the rightwing noise machine (Fox News, the Washington Times, Drudge Report, Talk Radio, etc.) We put forth quality candidates in races nationwide, only to see most outclassed and outgunned by a GOP which ran on three simple tenets: God, guns and gays.

It's a bitter pill to swallow, but one that should hopefully lead to a brighter future. Bush owns his messes, and now he'll be forced to clean them up. He won't be able to hide behind 9/11 seven years into his term. Unless the Republicans can engineer a recovery of epic proportions, they will have a great deal to answer to in the 2006 midterms and 2008. And God help Bush if this nation suffers another terrorist attack.

But best of all, we'll continue to see this great resurgence in progressive activism - the kind not seen in American politics in over a generation. None of these new activists heeded the call to arms only to abandon the fight today. We are energised, and will continue to fight for a better future for our country.

This exactly what the Goldwater conservatives did in 1964 -- work to build that very same conservative machine that has propelled Republicans to electoral dominance.

•  Remember Goldwater

  We've lost.

  First things first.  What were our weaknesses?  What brought this on?  What do we examine?  I live in rural America, and most folks here despise the idea of anyone from any race getting put in front of someone else because of race.  I'm for making sure there isn't discrimination, but the idea that someone would get put in front of my children because of race makes me scream.

  We need to examine our tactics and issues.  We need to fine tune our arguments.  Don't just talk amongst ourselves.  We need to bring in, and communicate to, everyone who isn't a neo-con, or a fundamentalist.  I went to U.C. Berkeley.  Too many people talking to themselves.  I like the Young Turks on Sirius Left (satellite radio)

  I understand (but rabidly disagree with) the reasons people voted for Bush.  They voted against their own economic interests.  Terrorism, God, Guns, and Gays won the day.

  We need to take back the media, giving them testicles.  NBC believes in getting input from spinmasters, instead of analysts.  No more of this "one from the left, one from the right."  Jon Stewart hit the nail on the head.  It's not an argument, it should be a discussion.

  We need to keep counting.

  We need to stop dirty tricks.  We need verifiable machines.

  We need to bring daylight to Halliburton, and all the conflicts of interest.  We can still bring them down.

  Silver lining (ain't much, I know) is that this is all Bush and the Republican parties fault.  Don't let them spin it away.  Stay vigilant.

  We need to not be pussies.  "I'm moving to Canada".  Only if you have draft age male children.  They are trying to take over the country.  We need to fight back.

  We need to use Republican principles to convince the majority of Americans.  The Patriot Act should terrify every freedom loving American. Bush and Co. are hypocrites.  Show why!

  Life goes to the persistent.
  

  by beeste on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:18:50 AM PDT

  •  I'm in this for the long haul...

    and I hope you are all in it with me, because with out that, I will be sad today.

    This community has changed me, it has made me stronger and smarter.  I will not go back to quietly objecting the conservatives.  Please stay in this fight Kossacks--people like me need you!
    

    by LA Dem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:23:41 AM PDT

    •  Ditto

      I've only been here for the last month or so, but I'm going to stick around.  At least until we get two branches of government back.

      :)

      by brooklynben on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:26:24 AM PDT

      •  I'm new to posting, but a longtime lurker

        and today I watch season 3 of the west wing.

        tomorrow is a new day. the fight begins again.

        I choose to fight for our country.

        by blackfrancis on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

        •  exactly!

          FIGHT!!!!

          hey, i was in this for the long haul.  

          btw, THANK YOU KOS & CO!!!   have i said that enough times?!?!?

          i'm a progressive in houston -- if i didn't have u guys i'd be depressed or dead from a heart attack caused by stress!

          or in tha pen b/c i started sniping all these damn rethugs!

          as it is, it's good to know that i'm not only NOT alone but that there is alot of us out there.

          WEE'LL BE BAAHCK!
          

          Bush, What Price Did You Pay?

          by krazypuppy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:35:46 PM PDT

      •  I'm new to posting, but a longtime lurker

        and today I watch season 3 of the west wing.

        tomorrow is a new day. the fight begins again.

        I choose to fight for our country.

        by blackfrancis on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:00:40 AM PDT

      •  I agree

        I'm not ready to give up and move. I'm a born citizen of the USA and will always fight for my beliefs and views.  

        by CrowNotAngelGRL on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:27:46 AM PDT

    •  Count Me In

      Never. Give. Up.

      by clone12 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:48:53 AM PDT

    •  Here for the long haul too

      Thanks kos and all websters for helping shape this community, may it continue. Thank all of you for being there, so I don't feel like an alien in my own country. Thanks to John Edwards who is telling us he's and Kerry are conceding this election, but not this war to get our country back. It's really beautiful. I'm weeping. Both to relieve the tension I've felt all night, and for the beautiful constitution and all of us who still carry our dream country in our hearts. As Edwards just said, we'll keeping marching for that one America, and we won't stop till we get there. Peace and light to all.

      by MillieNeon on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:01:11 AM PDT

    •  I'm not going anywhere

      This ain't over. Not even close.

      by silverbax on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:08:00 AM PDT

  •  Work from the bottom up

    Anything worth doing will take time.

    Think locally!  Run for those local offices.  City councils, election boards, school boards, whatever.

    That is how we make a long term impact on this country.

    Be active in your community.

    But you should still network nationally.  Keep those grass-root connections, so issues can be coordinated.

    by marchmoon on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:26:32 AM PDT

    •  Not just running for office.

      Like I say downthread, ballot initiatives are important.  What we're hearing about today - and it is very important - are all the anti-gay-marriage resolutions.  But Florida passed an increase in the minimum wage despite heavy opposition from business.  California came close to requiring large businesses to pay a substantial amount for their employees health insurance despite opposition from business.  There are three benefits from winning ballot initiatives.  You get something you want, like a higher minimum wage indexed to inflation.  You get to re-define part of the political discourse.  And you have a good chance to help out candidates for office who share your values.

      by MissLaura on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:39:41 AM PDT

  •  Good Grief: The Democratic Party

    Here's my diary I submitted a little while ago on the same topic.  

    Despite some noticeable exceptions, the Republicans have been kicking some ass ever since Reagan's ascension.  Regardless of how the presidential election turns out, they control both houses of Congress, most governorships and state legislatures, and the U.S. Supreme Court.  It looks now like they will control the federal executive branch until at least 2008.  
    I want to talk about why that is and maybe start a dialogue about what should or can be done about it (assuming anybody bothers to read this).

    If anything can be said to have characterized the psychology of the Democratic Party ever since 1828 -- when Andrew Jackson and his band of merry men founded the party for the express purpose of avenging what they believed was the stolen presidential election of 1824 by getting Old Hickory elected president -- it's a shared sense of grievance and exclusion.  We're in our element right now, folks.  We do some of our best work when they're trying to shaft us.

    MORE HERE: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/125636/345

    by tompaine2004 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:43:22 AM PDT

  •  my personal opinion

    the Christianity of yesterday set us up for this disaster. it has taught Christians to stop thinking for themselves, never question authority and only apply biblical principles to certain issues. the democratic party has to work with the progressive Christian movement to change this and break up the stranglehold reps have on religion. as the younger generations take over, we have to already have them on our side. the majority of baby boomers may be lost forever to greed and selfishness.

    this dynamic plays huge into the rural and suburban vote - which obviously carried bush.

    by shelly vander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:51:27 AM PDT

    •  Yes!

      As a moderate Catholic, I feel so isolated in this country.  You're either a wingnut Christian, or you "hate God".

      We need to retake REAL Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) principles for the progressives.

      The "religious values" should be JUSTICE, and FAIRNESS, and PEACE, not bigotry and exclusion and ignorance.

      by jpecot on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:09:46 AM PDT

      •  We have a winner...

        ...in our search for a banner under which to march in 2006, 2008 and beyond.

        The "religious values" should be JUSTICE, and FAIRNESS, and PEACE, not bigotry and exclusion and ignorance.

        Thanks jpecot, very well put.

        by GreatMidwest on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:36:29 AM PDT

      •  A thought on fighting the Christian fight

        In the Christian tradition, it is impossible for a person to become perfect through his or her will. No matter how hard you try, you cannot succeed. Only acceptance of this inability, and trust in God to save you from your sinful nature, will allow you to eventually reach perfection.

        That does not release you from the need to struggle. To fight temptation. To refuse to sink into apathy and allow sin to overtake you. You fight the fight every day, and with God's help, you will succeed in the end.

        We need to continue the fight. We've lost the battle, but not the war. And as long as we trust in God, we will not lose the war.

        I'm a progressive Christian.  I believe in God, in Jesus, and in the Bible.  And I don't want these thugs to represent me.  I want a return to Christian values in the US.  

        "What does the Lord require of you?  To do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God."
        

        by andlorr on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:59:41 AM PDT

      •  So true

        And the Democratic revival should start with Catholic voters, and in particular Hispanics. The deep South is lost for many years to come, but the Southwest offers rich opportunity. Save Utah the R's can not take these States for granted, and their populations are growing exponentially with every passing year. AZ, NM, NV, and CO should form the 4th subset of Democratic attention, along with the Upper-Midwest, New England and the Mid-Atlantic States, and the Sane Coast. Look how Latino immigration has changed the entire spectrum of California politics. The Democratic Party needs to become more 'Catholic' and less 'Evangelical'. Progressives may roll their eyes, but Catholic social values on poverty, the poor, the disenfrachised, and family should not be dismissed. Especially after this election, where we got beat in the popular vote by Smirking Chimp. An overhaul is required.  

        by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:46:14 PM PDT

  •  Exactly what people running for office need to say

    You've said exactly what I'd like to hear people running for office say!  We need people who will say what NEEDS to be said and what people NEED to hear.  That's step one in getting people who will actually be able to DO what NEEDS to be DONE and what people NEED to have DONE.

    There are Democrats out there that do that already.   Let's make those people be the centerpiece of our party, rather than the exception.  They are ultimately the most RESOLUTE people in our country.

    by westcornersville on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:54:22 AM PDT

  •  We had only one weakness that killed us

    Troll rate me if you must, but you know it's true.

    We were voted down as the party of gay marriage.

    It's true. We live in a nation of homophobic, backwater fools.

    by Proud And Free on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:55:54 AM PDT

    •  Truth, not troll

      My brother-in-law works in a saw mill in Virginia. He gets no health insurance, and his job could go at any time. Where he lives, his next-best option would be working at Wal-Mart, but he probably couldn't even get work there.

      In this tenuous position, he supports a wife and a baby girl. He has big medical bills from his daughter's birth, and he recently took out a second mortgage to make ends meet. When he loses his job or someone gets sick, he may lose his home.

      My brother-in-law voted to re-elect George W. Bush because he thought that the Democrats' top issue was letting gays get married.

      by seamusfurr on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:09:34 PM PDT

      •  Those fuckfaces look for any excuse

        to vote Republican.  If they don't hate gays, they hate blacks.

        Hate, Hate, Hate, it's all they know.

        And who is the party of hate?

        Fuck those people.  We don't need them.  We won without them in 92, 96, and 00.

        What we need is to present a clear and coherent message.

        What did we hear about Kerry?  Wishy-washy.  Flip-flopper.  No backbone.

        Why?

        Because he WAS wishy-washy.  He voted for the Authorization to Use Force, as well as the Patriot Act.  He ran away from the word liberal, whereas W proclaimed himself as a "Proud Conservative".

        We looked like a bunch of fucking pussies, and that's why we lost.

        Don't blame the gays for wanting their damn Civil Rights.

        by GrimReefa on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:25:30 PM PDT

  •  One weakness

    is our commitment to loaded vocabulary. May I invite any of you to a discussion of gay marriage, a crucial wedge issue in this election?

    diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/135258/259

    I would not link to my own diary, but as it is my first, I hate to see it drop off the list without anyone seeing it.

    by strandedlad on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:01:56 AM PDT

    •  gay marriage is religous freedom

      It isn't about 'gay marriage". It is about "freedom of religion".

      Religious freedom includes religious freedom for Unitarians and Quakers. The state should recognize any marriage performed by a recognized religious institution except in the case of compelling state interest (e.g., incest, forced marriage).  Frankly group marriage (if there is consent and parties are of age) is OK with me.

      No church shall be forced to accept marriages which offend them.

      We will continue to lose untile we know  how to frame.
      

      by redwagon on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:49:59 AM PDT

  •  try this..

    define a position on the left ... and stick to it... a "goldwater left"...full on insane left .. one where you will be landslid right off the map in an election ... and work it .. for 20 yrs... one damn issue at a time.

    trouble is, seems to me, all the 'left' has done since mccarthy was shuffled into the wings is help move the center further to the right...

    if the left is being defined by people who like to copter to mountain tops for a schuss .. or drive 20 miles for ice cream ... or are psychically cuffed to the next round of options... well ... i think you get something like what you have.

    by obstrepwithacause on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:46:51 AM PDT

  •  You nailed it!

    There was a serious amount of cheating on the Republican side, Ed Gillespie said so when he attacked the Democrats.  Standard operating procedure of the Republicans when they are guilty of something.  Also Buzzflash.com has a great article of Greg Palast's telling how because of their illegal maneuvers Kerry was down a million votes before a single vote was counted. (Sorry, I don't know how to link.)
    Also, Democrats have to learn how to frame much better, so that they reach the emotions of those millions who are voting against their own interests.
    Bush's arguements were nearly all emotion driven, which for so many seems to trump facts and logic.
    Somehow there must be a way to join emotion with logic, that shall be the major challange of the future.
    Also we have to start now to regain control over the governorships of Ohio and Florida.  You can't tell me that the Secretary of State in both places didn't assist Bush in taking those states.  Without their rigging the system, things would be much different

    by MsMarple on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:12:18 PM PDT

  •  Moving to Canada (or England...)

    What if I am a draft age male?

    by jmcgrew on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:24:33 PM PDT

•  Kos for President ! n/t

  by dlender on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:19:46 AM PDT

  •  Obama/Moulitsas 2008!

    n/t

    by RLF on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:23:44 AM PDT

•  You're missing or ignoring the point

  The system is rigged due to electronic voting. The channel changer, (the vote) is unreponsive to the will of the people. Until the equipment is fixed you can start all the movements you want to no end.

  by moon in the house of moe on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:20:25 AM PDT

  •  But

    There is no way we're going to get rid of the electronic voting machines unless and until we take over all the local and state races that will make it possible--do you honestly think the Republicans are going to get rid of them?

    The only way to take back this country is to fight from the local levels, build an infrastructure, such that when we do run a better race (as I think Kerry did), we have people running the elections that will enable us to win that race.

    by emptywheel on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:26:27 AM PDT

    •  People are not even addressing

      election fraud as a serious issue - let alone THE issue. The democratic party, kos and others are not identifying the disenfranchizement of the American people by electronic voting fraud as the reality of what happened here. So they're not even in the game. Rove must be laughing his ass off.

      by moon in the house of moe on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:56:44 AM PDT

      •  Voting machines

        It's not even one full day later. The voting machines are on lots of lips . . . I think we all are going to be continuing to fight on many levels, and Edwards and Kerry sound like they aren't going away either. Give us a chance to comprehend and feel what just happened. To do some healing. We haven't forgotten about those machines at all.

        by MillieNeon on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:04:01 AM PDT

      •  I'm not saying it's not important

        I'm saying that there is no way to get rid of the machines unless we win control of more states, more counties, more election official positions. Which gets us back to the same place--we've got to fight back first locally, then nationally.

        by emptywheel on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:19:27 AM PDT

      •  exactly

        they hit us with the same tricks but totally refined it.  they disenfranchised the black vote again, the machines are totally suspect.  so we agreed to play by the rules. but they continue to hold the rule book. and now they got the big rule book, the supreme court.
        i mean do you want to be like them use their ruthlessness for what end? pure naked power.

        hmmm just what kind of civil society has this country become.  its time to really think things through.

        shhhhh, his excellency is going to speak about his mandate.  now the horror of unrestrained power is here in real time indefinitely.

        by ralphyboy on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:50:20 AM PDT

    •  How?

      If the local rethugs own the electronic machines how do you ever win against them?

      by Blutodog on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:39:19 AM PDT

    •  As long as you (we) are running against

      the Republicans that won't happen. They have a lock on the courts, the media, all government in all the states as well as federally. Their aim is to do away with the federal government as we have known it and put a Bush dynasty in its place. They have everything they need to do it now.  They control the House, the Senate, nearly every state house, the Supreme Court and now Bush is in they will have an even firmer control since the Democrats can't mount any objections to anyone he nominates. They control the media, control the press, radio, tv, and will soon control the Internet, have not fear.

      After the elections of 2002 the local NPR station said the GOP had a "lock" on the government for the next 50 to 100 years. It appears they knew something we didn't.

      I see absolutely no hope of "building" anything. They already control  the local governments in most states. There is no Democratic Party in Texas and there will not be one in most other states either soon.

      I repeat, if you think that they are joking about hinting you down with dogs and killing you just keep whistling in the dark because they aren't.

      Any Democrat who has the audacity to attemp to win will be "killed" figuratively or, if need be literally. Remember Carnahan and Wellstone. Those were NOT accidents no matter how many "experts" say they were.

      by fspragens on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:22:55 PM PDT

  •  Not if we can win some of those southern states.

    Vote rigging happened in two choice electoral-vote rich states.

    This wouldn't have been a problem if Kerry picked up some of the southern states.  We need to work on winning southern hearts and minds.  

    Get Air America in those states.  Any other ways of winning the hearts and minds?

    by Greenkermie in AZ on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:30:27 AM PDT

    •  Cynically...

      whenever I hear the phrase "hearts and minds" I think of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" - which, uncomfortably, recalls the Civil War...

      I worry that the battle between rationalists and theocrats cannot be won by reason...

      by another greenlander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:42:35 AM PDT

      •  Civil War

           Slavery was founded on "right wing" so called Christian values. It took 700,000 dead Americans to pry their slaves away from them and even after that  these same people and their children managed to turn the feed slaves into serfs without rights for another 100 yrs anyway.  The next even nastier Civil (Cultural) War is over women's rights and gay rights. I doubt the American Taliban can ever be reasoned with on these issues. Their whole agenda is based on irrationality not reason. I'm afraid that in the end they will want their way either through the ballot box or with guns.

        by Blutodog on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:51:27 AM PDT

    •  You will NEVER win southern states. Ever.

      Until you understand this

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/92359/8844

      If there is another terrorist attack in America, it will NOT hurt George Bush. The people who support George Bush believe in him. GEORGE BUSH CAN DO NO WRONG. Over the next four years, democracy will be replaced with theocracy.

      Goldwater is irrelevant. Unless you find a way to stop the soutern fundamentalists that have subverted Christianity for their own self aggrandizement, any rational, cogent, well informerd argument is irrelevant. Goldwater didn't lead to today,  It was Coors/Dominionists that lead to today.

      The Republicans have finally created the perfect robotic army. Until we find a way to deprogram their robots, we cannot win the south. Much less America. And the next four years are going to make sure that it will be 100 times harder to do so in the future than it is now.

      Democrats 2004. Now we know how the Omega Man felt. LOL.

      by Alumbrados on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:44:21 AM PDT

      •  Subvert Christianity back

        It has powerful philosophical messages that certain elements who call themselves Christians conveniently ignore. It seems to me there have been only timid attempts to remind these so-called faithful about those ignored tenets.

        Reformers have in the past wielded religion as a bright guide toward true compassion, not as a weapon to destroy those who disagree. So if the voice of organised religion is going to be given many more platforms over the next few years, some of us can ascend those platforms and start getting out a different sort of message. I heartily believe this, anyway. Because I'm putting my faith into the idea of "by any media necessary" to start getting this country back on track.

        Not looking for a "hallelujah," but I might whisper one to myself anyway, just as a pep talk.

        by AbyssAndApex on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:09:41 AM PDT

        •  Hallelujah!

          :-)

          My thoughts exactly

          by jpecot on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:11:57 AM PDT

        •  Amen, too. (nt)

          by Julia Grey on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:47:11 AM PDT

        •  Welcome to America

          where Christianity is about hate, war, and elitism.  You can't change this in 4 years or even 12 years--it's about faith and people grow up being indoctrinated to the faith they will believe in their entire lives.  

          We can appeal to faith, but nobody will listen a liberal talking about faith, because liberals don't act on their faith.  Why don't they act?  Because, we don't believe in controlling women and their bodies, we don't believe in persecuting those who are different from us in sexuality, race, religion, or culture, and when we hear the word "evil" we think of war.  Liberals do not have Christian values as defined by American Christians.

          I believe that until there is a sea change in America such as another great depression that threatened people's ability to eat and posses shelter, or somehow American's lost their TeeVees, liberals will never control our government again.  Americans are content and happy now, and even in  the worst recession, they will remain content as long as they can eat, keep their house or apartment, and most importantly, keep their TeeVee.

          I think us liberals are currently facing a terrible choice; we must decide between our beliefs in social equality for women, minorities, and homosexuals, and acquiring power of the US government.  We cannot have both; standing up for any of society's outcasts means losing.

          by Subterranean on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:57:02 PM PDT

          •  Liberal because of my faith, not instead of it

            Christianity per se is not about war and hate and elitism, no matter how warmongering, hateful, and elitist some elements become. I hear what you're saying and feeling, but it's the same as saying "Don't bother to campaign, and don't bother to vote."

            Religion can be used as a tool as easily as anything else. I can cut off your head with an axe or smother you with a pretty embroidered pillow, but it doesn't make the fluffy pillow a WMD.

            I'm a Liberal because I act on my faith, a faith that includes the head as well as the heart and has had that tradition since almost the beginning. As a Liberal Christian, I have no choice but to stand up for society's outcasts.

            Can you eventually win? Yes. Although, over time, humans will screw it up again. We always do.

            If I could hand out one piece of literature to every Conservative Christian and know they were going to read it, it would be the Beatitudes (Blessed are the meek, etc., which resonates in Jewish philosophy and other religions as well). That's the speech that recent Mel Gibson movie gave about 6 seconds airtime. The 6-seconds airtime some Christians give that part of the philosophy in their own minds is where the problem is. I think we can reach them through what they already believe.

            by AbyssAndApex on Thu Nov 04, 2004 at 06:24:55 AM PDT

      •  You understand perfectly what is going on.

        by fspragens on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:28:06 PM PDT

    •  Not a Southern strategy

      but rather a Southwest strategy is in order. With an exploding Hispanic vote, we can keep closing the gap in NM, AZ, CO, and NV. The South (except FL) is out of play for a while.

      by michigandemocrat19 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:50:04 AM PDT

      •  Don't write off the south

        If you continue to ignore the south, it just gets redder and redder because there are no competing voices.  The people here are not incapable of rational thought, but many are too busy to pay attention to issues themselves and happy to let someone else tell them how to vote.  The Christian Coalition, ALFA, or even their own minister accept this role.  Democrats don't campaign here, so there isn't much of an opposing view.

        Most southern states (except FL and GA) don't have electronic voting machines yet, but once they get it, it could be a lot harder for the 'wrong' candidates to ever be elected.  We need to influence this to make sure there is a paper trail and recount capability.

        by Mooncat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:46:01 PM PDT

      •  BINGO!

        I could not agree more. And 10/15 years down the line, look for Hispanics to change the political face of Texas and Oklahoma too.

        by Dont Just Stand There on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:53:24 PM PDT

•  Well said...

  If there's any one idea that should come out of this blow we've taken it's exactly what Kos is saying--this is a long-term fight.

  So anyone who's steamed, do what you do to work it out, then let's roll up our shirtsleeves...

  by Jsea on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:20:28 AM PDT

•  One major problem facing the democrats...

  ABB independents like myself turned out and voted for Kerry, but they won't vote for the democrats in the future.  If people like me had voted for the canidates we really wanted this would have been even worse for Kerry.

  by furiousxgeorge on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:20:46 AM PDT

  •  Exactly.

    We're dreaming if we think the Dem party will emerge stronger after TWO asskickings in two years.

     Watch for the "two party system is flawed". Watch for new parties FROM the Democratic base to emerge.

    Now that the election is over, watch the democratic base erode even further. Watch for the "emergence of the south". The Republican party will only consolidate its power further barring an economic collapse.

    by xsal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:27:37 AM PDT

    •  A centrist party

      If the lesson that the democrats learn from this election is that they need to move farther left, and the theocons/big spenders completely take over the republican party, look for a new party from libertarian/financial-conservative republicans and DLC democrats.  I know I'd be there in a second.

      by TWAndrews on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:53:39 AM PDT

      •  Bye!

        good luck with that.

        by Feanor on Tue Nov 16, 2004 at 10:51:06 AM PDT

    •  Not a bad showing against an incumbant

      And this is not at all a bad show against an incumbant in the middle of a war.  The number of people who voted for Bush to avoid "changing horses in midstream" was I suspect far larger than the GOP would like to admit.

      Then, which is hard for many of us to understand, Bush is well-liked by those who like him.  Well-hated by those who can't stand the very sight of him, but there is a fairly even split:  33% love him, 33% hate him, 33% are indifferent.  Events may knock off his teflon coating, or his failure to provide for the basic needs of the American people may eventually catch up with him.  Most importantly, the GOP can't run him for President again, so who are they going to run?  Jeb?  Sorry, I think even they would gag at that idea.  Cheney?  nope, he'll be on life support around that time, or just so rigid that he is no longer able to speak.  So who they gonna run?  DeLay?  Frist?  spare me...

      Winning this particular election, given all the shit that may hit the fan in the next year, has to be viewed as akin to winning the booby prize.  I suggest that we start work on the midterms elections, and let the GOP do their deluded jig of victory, and enjoy it while they can.  Some bad shit is just around the corner, unless I am very much mistaken.

      by arthura on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:37:11 AM PDT

  •  Time To Unite With The Party

    We must remain united.  Otherwise we are doomed.  Peroutka and Badnarik got almost no votes at all.  If we are splintered we will sink into oblivion.  We got close because we were united.  But we started from almost nowhere.  Throwing away everything we built is tantamount to suicide.  Or perhaps you prefer a Christian Reconstructionist government.

    by Rob Waldeck on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:35:08 AM PDT

  •  If there are many like you ....

    
    The Republicans, far right and center, fight hard amongst themselves between elections but then come together in a coalition for victory.   If there are many like you, who want to splinter the center-left coalition, then the united Repubs will rule forever.

    Your choice.

    by Stevie on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:58:42 AM PDT

    •  The center-left coalition

      Can't beat them either.  I would rather vote for a party that actually supports the issues most important to me and loses than a party that doesn't and loses anyway.  The democrats will not get the indie voters again.

      Many many libertarians, for instance, voted for Kerry.  These are people who accept voting for a hopeless canidate who supports what they believe in and losing.

      They will not again support a canidate who opposes what they believe in and lose anyway.

      It was a big compromise for me to vote for the lesser of two evils, and it won't happen again.

      by furiousxgeorge on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:10:21 PM PDT

      •  least of evils

        i didn't cave in this year ... despite the weird browbeating i took from my tribe for several months...at least the bush out at any cost ones... i've been witnessing the center move further and further(your pov here)for 30 years ... and, to me,voting least of evils is a significant mechanism in this shift... i just run out of arguments... and leave it that i'm just 3-4 elections ahead of the curve maybe. Can't win?... so what...

        Suppose if your in an ideological tug of war ... you don't put all of your muscle in the middle... so good on you you crackpot libertarians, socialists,god people, atheists, patriots, peaceniks, druggies, criminals, straights, queers, donkeys, elephants, immigrants, plymouth rockers ... vote your mind and cheers to finding the center.

        by obstrepwithacause on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:46:11 PM PDT

•  To be fair

  that comparison is way off

  Goldwater had no shot of victory in the first place

  There needs to be a grassroots effort to get the general assemblys by 2010, so we can draw the districts, and we should try to gain ground in the House and Senate as well

  by RBH on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:20:52 AM PDT

  •  It is off

    also because Kerry is no Goldwater.  but this is a Goldwater moment.  I think our Goldwater was dropped early, and he was Howard Dean.  Trust me, when looking back at this election 20 years down the road, besides talking about how Bush brought us to the brink, we'll be talking about how the seeds of the Progressive movement were laid down by Dean during the campaign.

    by ron gauguin on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:44:54 AM PDT

•  what worked; what didn't

  The money was there. The organization was humming. The candidate was good enough if not perfect.

  It's appropriate to consider how the Dems lost on message. And how the Dems continue to get unfavorable treatment in the SCLM.

  by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:21:38 AM PDT

  •  Too much concentration in big cities

    We needed to bring our message to the rural areas.

    by chicagoprogressive on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:23:04 AM PDT

    •  what message? how to deliver it?

      What's the message?

      How do the Dems bring it to rural areas?

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:25:59 AM PDT

      •  I live in Lake County Oregon pop 7000

        It is a very republican area.   What needs to be done is development in low level postions precint people.   Run for local offices.  People in rural areas probably want to hear from local leaders that adress there issues.   It is about communication and organization.

        by Ddorr on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:43:39 AM PDT

        •  This cliche isn't exactly new

          If it hasn't happened already why hasn't it?

          by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:38:56 PM PDT

      •  On Message

        The message is security, jobs, healthcare, education, equal rights for all, and morality.  The networks are talking about how many voters responded to moral values.  Republicans have been reinforcing their message by associating their issues with morals.  We need to do the same.

        Protecting this country is a moral imperative.  Creating good paying jobs is a moral imperative.  Teaching our children the essentials for them to thrive in this world is a moral imperative.  Protecting the rights of all Americans is a moral imperative.  

        Why should we limit ourselves to talking about the death penalty in moral terms, and not protecting lives of Americans?

        Why should we talk about providing shelter for the homeless in moral terms, and not in creating good paying jobs?

        You can fill out the rest.  We believe these things to be moral, we should say so.

        by ron gauguin on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:57:19 AM PDT

        •  You got it

          Liberalism from its roots was a moral movement.  It was the Harding Coolidge Republicans who were immoral fat cats.  Who was the moralist and the christian--Bryan or McKinely?  Every root of the progressive era was based on late Victorian moralism:  as Obama said, "we are our brothers keeper."   It is as simple as that.  

          We     Want    To     Help    You    Because     It      Is      Morally

          RIGHT.

          This is what needs to be done.

          I suggest to all Kossacks:  go join a liberal church or Synagogue and run for local office, like school board or PTA or traffic board or something.   Tie the two together.  Rebuild the great past of progressivism in this country from the group up the way Lafollette and Bryan did.

          by Biermann on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:18:31 PM PDT

        •  You got it

          Liberalism from its roots was a moral movement.  It was the Harding Coolidge Republicans who were immoral fat cats.  Who was the moralist and the christian--Bryan or McKinely?  Every root of the progressive era was based on late Victorian moralism:  as Obama said, "we are our brothers keeper."   It is as simple as that.  

          We     Want    To     Help    You    Because     It      Is      Morally

          RIGHT.

          This is what needs to be done.

          I suggest to all Kossacks:  go join a liberal church or Synagogue and run for local office, like school board or PTA or traffic board or something.   Tie the two together.  Rebuild the great past of progressivism in this country from the ground up the way Lafollette and Bryan did.
          

          by Biermann on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:19:37 PM PDT

        •  "Morals"

          GWB has led one of the most immoral presidencies in U.S. history. When people say "morality" is important to them it's a codeword. What's it a code for?

          You can argue your version of "morality" is somehow more appropriate, but in case you missed it, a well-reasoned argument isn't enough to dislodge people from the Bush camp.

          by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:41:32 PM PDT

          •  Morals Unquote

            Morals is not a codeword for most conservatives and Americans.  They use codewords to listen and to convey moral language, but they are serious about them. Why shouldn't they be?  They listen to ideas, but those ideas plug into values, and those values are dependent on morals. Values are trained or formed over time.  Most Americans won't be persuaded with ideas.

            I am not depending on a well-reasoned argument.  I am depending on an echo chamber of well-reasoned arguments.  One discussion or argument is not going to dislodge conservatives or moderates who voted Bush.  But many many many discussions and arguments are going to seep into their thinking. At first they will fight them,  and then they will have to concede points, and then they will begin to sympathize with Progressive arguments, and then they will realize that they share values in common with Progressives, and then they will want to have Progressives represent them.  And then they will think that "conservative" is bad word.  And then conservatives will be posting on blogs about how they can reclaim the national argument.

            "GWB has led one of the most immoral presidencies in U.S. history"  How do you show them that?  Show them what morals they aren't using.

            .

            by ron gauguin on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:50:52 PM PDT

            •  try it

              Test it with a focus group.

              by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 04:06:40 PM PDT

              •  Hey Focus Group!

                Focus Group This!!

                by ron gauguin on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 05:43:36 PM PDT

      •  moral issues

        despite the lower income in rural areas, we lost on moral issues. no matter how much we harp about deficit and stupid wars, they don't care...Kos was right about the Guns, God and Gays. the only way to change that is to reframe the Christian [mostly rural] vote. that means uniting and bringing in as much progressive Christian support as possible.

        the reps have gotten their message out through the church...subliminally almost. there's no reason we can't do the same and, fortunately for us, the time is right to do so. we will never win without their votes.

        by shelly vander on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:00:15 AM PDT

        •  GWB leads forces of Good against Evil

          When people are afraid you're not going to reason away their fears by redefining "morality".

          GWB and his team have persuaded people the United States is locked in a struggle with Evil. Bush leads the forces of Good. Until this paradigm is debunked Dems are at a disadvantage.

          So... How does the reality-based community dislodge the notion we're in a struggle with Evil?

          by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:45:39 PM PDT

          •  By embracing it.

            Take the idea and push it to its limits. Expose the absurdity of it by exaggerating it even beyond what they already have.  Parody their rhetoric but appear sincere.  

            Advocate federal funding of public school programs to warn the young of the Evil out there.  Suggest segregating Islamic communities.  Suggest segregating gay communities.

            Those might be going too far, but who knows, just respond to what they do and go one step further until the whole thing collapses under its own idiotic weight.

            by thus trazara on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:54:20 PM PDT

            •  name the beast and laugh it to death

              I mostly agree.

              Call the beast for what it is. And ridicule it.

              by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:02:47 PM PDT

              •  Hey Carl...

                I just noticed your name...Tom here, from WFA-Chicago days.  Good to see you here.  Have to say, the organization here is a far cry from those meetings in the Fine Arts Building, huh?  

                by thus trazara on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:30:09 PM PDT

                •  call me

                  Hey! I'm gonna go on the air at 8 PM or a little after (until 10 PM). Give me a call at 312-413-2191. I'm gonna do open phones tonight.

                  by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:35:13 PM PDT

    •  Your Neighbor Is A Democrat

      Something like a "Your neighbor is a Demcorat" campaign, to counter the Limbaugh slime about "elitist liberals..."

      by davej on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:36:37 AM PDT

    •  Check the exits.

      Bush did better in the cities than he did in 2000.  We did better in small towns and rural areas.

      by Drew on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:37:35 AM PDT

  •  if the democrats lost on message

    wouldn't that mean the candidate wasn't good enough? he wasn't good enough for me, because he didn't have a message. "i can fight a war better"? was that it?
    
    we nominated a man we thought could win on republican terms (he's a veteran! the republicans can't attack that, right?) instead of defining the terms ourselves. that we lost surprises me not because of kerry's skills, but bush's obvious weaknesses.
    
    kerry was not the only problem, but he was a part of it.

    by shux on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:29:47 AM PDT

    •  On the Right

      On the Right it isn't the candidate's job to come up with the message.  The Republican machine is working ALL THE TIME to spread their message.  Then, at election time their candidates just show up and ride that wave.

      Progressives are on their own, starting from scratch for each election.

      We need to build organizations that work ALL THE TIME, not just during election cycles, to explain to people why demcoracy is good, why community is good, why paying taxes is good for everyone, why "privatization" means we'll all wind up being paid less, etc.

      So don't blame the party.  TAKE OVER the party.  Help build organizations that reach out to America to explain why Progressives are better for them.

      by davej on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:39:18 AM PDT

    •  Kerry lost when 9/11 was framed

      My thinking in the last couple hours is that GWB & the GOP framed the debate long ago. They framed it as a conflict between Good and Evil. Bush leads the forces of Good.

      So Dems talking to the media need to work to debunk that the USA is in a struggle with Evil.

      And we should ridicule media figures that go along with the Good vs. Evil characterization.

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:49:01 PM PDT

  •  What worked? Diebold and other EVMs

    Until every one here realizes that and invests ALL their energy into changing the fucked up electronic voting machines, all this talk today and in the future is totally useless.  

    by Southern Bird on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:37:29 AM PDT

    •  fix elections & work on message

      I agree that getting accountability in the voting process should be one of the two top priorities for the Dems.

      But the Senate losses suggest the Ds are in trouble in more ways than just the mechanics of elections.

      by Carl Nyberg on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 02:51:06 PM PDT

•  Too late

  We won't be able to reform it for some time - congress is controlling by the wingers. Plus no money.

  Personally I like the Oregon model of mailing in the ballots.

  As an aside note, wait till they take away a woman's right to choose and other stuff. The theocrats are in full power now. Radical nuts are in now people.

  by chicagoprogressive on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:21:58 AM PDT

  •  The "theocrats" could have thought...

    all was lost in the "Hippie 60s" and "Disco 70s" with free love and Roe v. Wade and liberals as far as the eye could see.

    But they instead cobbled together a brilliant (though divisive) long term strategy to win - and you're seeing the fruits of their labor now.

    Let's start our own INCLUSIVE long term strategy.

    by VirginiaDem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:24:13 AM PDT

  •  Mailing in ballots won't help

    ... if the machine being used to tally them up is hacked.

    I do not trust Bush and Co.  How can I, after the way they manipulated the nation?

    I do not trust the major networks and cable stations.  How can I, after the way they bent over?

    I do not trust the system we use to express our voice, our vote.  How can I, after seeing such an incongruous result in 2000 and even more so in 2004?

    There is only one place to start, as far as I can see: insist on a verifiable way to vote.  If we don't have that, it won't matter how many of us are fed up (again) by 2006 or 2008.  Without that, we can just sit here and commiserate until the day Bush and Co. decides that gathering on the Internet is a threat to national security.  Let's not wait that long.

    by Ennealogic on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:32:15 AM PDT

  •  IT professional at your service :)

    i'm sure i'm not the only one too...

    and i'm sure i'm not the only one who almost swallowed their cigarette when they found out that Diebold's sophisticated, expensive e-voting system consisted of a bunch of Access databases and the security of the system was as solid as the theory behing supply-side economics.

    my god - > i could whip up a better system in my sleep.
    

    by sheli on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:09:02 PM PDT

•  The tea is still in the harbor.

  We had a better chance this time around than we would have without Dean and his supporters. We will learn from our mistakes and our successes. We will continue to fight the good fight from the ground up. And eventually, we will prevail.

  by RonV on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:21:59 AM PDT

  •  1960/2000 1964/2004

    Over on the DFA board last year, I noted the parallels between the early 1960s and the early 2000s.  We had a president elected in an extremely close election, we had to deal with a nearly unprecedented national tragedy, and we got more and more bogged down into a war.  

    In addition, the ruling party gained overwhelming political strength while setting the seeds for its eventual downfall.

    Bush is their Johnson, and Dean/Kerry is our Goldwater.  We cannot wallow in our misery and we need to look how we can build on this for our eventual ascendency.

    by Khun David on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:40:02 AM PDT

    •  2008

      So by parallel, Gore is our Nixon?  We're finally gonna get President Gore in '08?

      "You're not gonna have Al Gore to kick around anymore"...

      Lets' hope so....

      by jpecot on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:15:38 AM PDT

•  And it's not like we're that far off

  Please see my diary on this - we are the minority, but still a LOUD and LARGE minority.

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/1306/60010

  by VirginiaDem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:22:02 AM PDT

•  I would agree with this

  IF the candidate we lost with was someone like Dean, that we liked.  Repubs genuinely loved Goldwater.

  Now that the election was over, I can publically say I know very few Dems who liked Kerry.  He was only nominated because he seemed electable (which he never was).  Kerry's position on the war was muddled and immoral.

  Poll after poll shows that Kerry did not excite the base.

  by Rally Burger on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:22:12 AM PDT

  •  I don't want to be rude but..

    I think what is more important is how we have lost on the message.  I am afraid of the hindsight arguments that will start to get thrown around here today.  I think we need to tighten up our message and approach, but making it about the candidate is not helpful to me.  If people really feel it's just about Kerry than I am afraid we are in for a long losing streak here.

    by LA Dem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:29:03 AM PDT

    •  he did talk about the message

      and mentioned that john kerry's central thems "i can fight the war better" was confused at best. kerry was a problem because kerry had no message - and apparently that was ok for the dems that voted for him as nominee.
      
      so what's the message:
      
      security for all: war on terror, not gwb's boogeymen
      equality for all: health care for all
      opportunity for all: education
      responsibility for all: balanced budget and environment
      
      every one of these issue has moral significance. every one of them should be spoken of within that context.

      by shux on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:38:15 AM PDT

      •  I hear you...

        and I do agree with you and others here that the candidate and the message have to fit well and have to be genuine in order to connect well.  But, I am concerned that we lose even more when the first place we point to is the candidate.  Too many times on the left when a candidate loses, we cannibalize them.  That's all...

        by LA Dem on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:08:49 PM PDT

  •  Whatever.

    We wouldn't have won with Dean either. In fact the bleeding would've been more severe. If Rove/Bush managed to stick the "liberal" tag on Kerry. Can you imagine what they would've done with Dean?

    by xsal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:31:10 AM PDT

    •  Pardon my French

      but that is a fucking stupid hypothetical argument.

      Look, you just underlined the big split in the Democratic Party.  You have made the traditional DLC argument: adopt the right's issues, don't run someone who could be characterized as "liberal" or "out of the mainstream."

      The slander would have happened even had we run Joe-mentum.  And you have no knowledge of how Howard Dean would have fared.

      Basically, your argument for not running a proud, progressive Democrat has been tried.  And it has failed.  Repeatedly.

      I think we failed to GOTV in the massive numbers we hoped for because--again--we had a candidate who did not define clearly enough his differences from the other side.

      And if I'm wrong--well, we've tried your way and we see what happened.

      by ubikkibu on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:45:24 AM PDT

      •  Agreed

        enough of the DLC Rethug lite candidates. If Dean had been stating" wrong war wrong place, wrong time" it would have been recieved well. But to try to graft the Dean message on to 2 guys who voted for the resolution and then never clearly defined that it was as the shrub had stated " a vote for peace" We need to keep working, and until Americans can hear a closer to the truth message than they get from the SCLM we will have great difficulties...And why do they get off calling themselves pro-life when they kill innocents with impunity in Iraq and believe in the death penalty. Lets spin that one please..

        by CBSenator on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:46:37 AM PDT

      •  Senators

        And it seems that putting Senators up as our candidate is a BAD idea. It hasn't worked in a long time. Senators just have too much of a voting record.

        by davinic on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:49:49 PM PDT

    •  That makes no sense

      Dean is more conservate than Kerry.  

      I do think that Dean would have been hammered on gay rights, but it's hard to say if that would have been enough to turn out Bush's base even more.  

      Dean's great plus, of course, is that he has no military service record.  That's a huge plus for a presidential candidate, just ask McCain, Gore, Dole, and Bush Sr.

      by Subterranean on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 06:42:38 PM PDT

  •  true that

    I think Dick Morris did some polling on this question and had an article on the NYT I think.
    Kerry did not have any real supporters, just ABB people.
    So one really liked Kerry, just hated Bush.

    That's what you get when the DNC annoints someone.
    

    by dan in sd on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:35:57 AM PDT

    •  No one liked Kerry?

      Less people liked Kerry than liked Bush, I admit.  But I sure read a lot of love notes for JFK on this forum among others.

      Kerry made some mistakes.  But consider two points.

      1.  He was fighting an incumbent in wartime.

      2.  The electoral map looks almost exactly the way it did in 2000.

      #1 means that he did all right.

      #2 means that the causes of Bush's and the GOP's success are much deeper than the issues of the moment, vital as they may be.

      by outside observer on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:51:05 AM PDT

      •  I agree, plus two more

        1. War time president
           
        2. Increase in gov't spending
           
        3. Decrease in taxes

        Typically it's raise taxes/increase spending vs cut taxes/cut spending, but Bush defied this logic with his cut taxes/increase spending administration.  All gain and no pain.  As Cheney said "deficits don't matter."

        Yet.  One thing I'm happy about is that they will have to clean up their own mess over the next four years.  This will be painful and the electorate won't be pleased by the changes.

        by geech on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

    •  Dick Morris is an idiot

      This man should not be listened to.  He is just bitter and is now working to do everything he can to destroy the Democratic party.

      I liked Kerry.  I started supporting him as soon as he announced, actually, even before he announced I was hoping that either he or Bob Kerrey would run.  In fact I was hoping for a Kerry/Kerrey ticket.

      As for Howard Dean, I don't think he could have done any better.  This was a values campaign, in which fear over gay marriage was even more important the fear over terrorism.  John Kerry was only tangentially associated to gay marriage through Massachusetts, but Howard was the first governor to sign a civil unions bill.  I think this would have caused even more bleeding.

      As a gay man I am very scared from the results of this election.   The theocons are not going to stop, but be more empowered and work to push their agenda even further.  There is obviously a large portion of America that is voting values over economic interests.   We are never going to win the God, guns, gays argument with these people.  Georgia, where I live, is now all Republican, and a Republican party run by Ralph Reed.  Thats scary.

      However, there is still quite a bit of Rockefeller Republicanism out there.  We need to work with these people and convince them that some measure of progressive economics is needed to preserve and strengthen capitalism and they should be able to support Dems.  Look at George Soros and Warren Buffet for help here.  We need to point out how the Repugs are moving away from personal freedoms and that if they truly believe in personal freedom from government, they can no longer ignore this theocon movement.  Reagan always spoke how the Democratic party left him, well the Republicans have left these people, they are just too stubborn to admit it yet

       While this policy won't get us votes in Nebraska or Kansas, etc, we can win Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Florida and Ohio.

      There are no more votes on the left to get and this country will never be as liberal as some of us would like.  At this point it is fight for the center, or let the far, far right keep ruling.

      by smoosh21 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:22:12 PM PDT

    •  I liked Kerry

      And I know lots of others who did too.  

      by Mooncat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

      •  lots of people liked kerry better than Bush

        or maybe disliked bush more than kerry, or maybe one was a bigger idiot than the other.  
        In any case, there was no real choice for some, and they stuck with the one they knew.
        I don't think Al Gore in 2000 is a good comparison given that Al lost his own state.  Can you imagine your own state rejecting you, even Mondale won Minnesota.

        In any case, I think in this electorate, you have to give people a reason to vote FOR you, and not just reason to vote AGAINST the other guy.

        If we keep running aginst these types of plain spoken Republicans, we have to play that game. National politics sadly, is becoming like miss universe I think.  It's not going to be about substance, it's about the candidate connecting with people.
        A nuanced professor type is not going to make it for us. Regular people are rejecting academics as being pompous and arrogant snobs.

        by dan in sd on Wed Nov 10, 2004 at 10:42:11 AM PDT

  •  Another Kossack mis-reading Dean

    Dean exciting a sliver of the base, but not the base itself.   His support was deep, but narrow.   I'm not saying Kerry was a perfect candidate, but puh-lease.  When the anti-gay card was played to perfection and a decorated war hero was made out to be a pussy, you think the ex-gov of Vermont who signed into law civil-unions would have done better?  

    I'm so sick of hearing how much Dean excited his base.  I'm the Democratic base.  I'm as liberal as it gets.  And I wasn't the least bit excited by Dean.  

    by dansac on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:47:40 AM PDT

    •  Thank you!

      I'm a die-hard Democrat, and Dean scared the shit out of me as a candidate. I do think Dean would be a great DNC Chair, though, based on his character.

      by michigandemocrat19 on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:05:06 AM PDT

    •  sorry, pal

      But Dean was well-liked in swing voter focus groups... even people who disagreed with him respected the fact he took a firm stand.

      I have 2 Republican parents in Missouri who would have voted for him.  They didn't consider him a liberal, because of his position on guns and deficits.  They voted for Bush yesterday, because Kerry was a "Massachusetts liberal."  Even though Dean was more progressive than Kerry, Kerry seemed more liberal because of his overall demeanour.

      Kerry's equivocation on the war didn't win him any pro-war votes.  He, and any Dem nominee, was always going to be branded anti-war.  Kerry got all of the negatives of being anti-war, and none of the positives

      And OK, you weren't excited by Dean, you are the liberal base.  I am the liberal base, and not only did I not get excited about Kerry, I disliked him.

      by Rally Burger on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:08:44 AM PDT

      •  I don't

        know if fighting about who would have been the better candidate will do the liberal cause any good.

        What has passed has passed and we can't change it. Kerry was our candidate and would have made a far, far superior president compared to Bush.

        by Zagatzz on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:57:21 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          I think we can all just admit and agree that nominating Kerry was a huge mistake, and leave it at that.

          by Rally Burger on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 12:44:05 PM PDT

    •  Nonsense

      Dean couldn't be smeared as having served dishonorably because he never served.  Toughness in American politics is all about image, and Dean exuded toughness from every pore.  There is just no way Dean could be defined as a pussy the way Kerry was.

      The gay hate issue would have hit Dean hard, but it's difficult to say whether that would hurt him differently electorally, particularly since Dean supported only Civil Unions and not gay marriage.  

      Dean's ability to speak succinctly about issues would have sunk Bush, IMO; it negated Bush's only strength.  Dean speaks simply about complex issues, while Bush speaks simply about simple issues.  But the key would have been Dean's ability to attract conservatives based on his fiscal discipline and NRA support.  

      by Subterranean on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 07:05:23 PM PDT

  •  You are WRONG about many dems not liking Kerry.

    I was wild about him as were many, many others. Absolutely devoted to the guy. Thought he was the second coming of FDR and JFK. And, this was after a thoughtful analysis, much reading and much discussion. To me he was ideal presidential material - smart, an experienced legislator, a man of character and a terrific vision for our future.

    by sugar land liberal on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:12:58 AM PDT

    •  well

      the polls (and the election results) do not bear this out.

      by Rally Burger on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:24:30 AM PDT

    •  I think so too,

      but a majority of the Americans prefer the Evil Chimp.

      by Zagatzz on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 11:46:46 AM PDT

•  Agreed

  We have a network. We have the infrastructure, but we need more.

  We, as progressives, need to spend time studying and writing. We need to come up with big ideas. Then we need to take these ideas and communicate them in a way that people can understand. For example, when the Republicans talk about tax cuts, they say "tax relief". We need to take the ideas we develop, break them down and take them into the "heartland" as we move our case forward. It's not enough to hold the West Coast, East Coast and Great Lakes. All we accomplish is inviting the others side to force into a defensive posture. We need to take our ideas into the Midwest, Sotuhwest, and yes, back into the South.

  by RandyMI on Wed Nov 03, 2004 at 10:22:20 AM PDT

  •  And plan to exploit Republican failures

    More than Goldwater in 1964, we can really predict what is going to happen under a Bush presidency. We know he is going to keep us at war. We know he is likely to institute some kind of draft, even if it is simply a skills draft. We know he is going to continue economic policies that benefit the rich--and we know there will be some fighting within the Republican party over the deficit, which means we know that funding for social services will be cut back even more. We know that Bush will continue to isolate us from the rest of the world. A