Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Nov 9, 2004.
i think i like that idea.
I think a lot of Republicans would love that idea.
i credit dean w/ mobilizing the democratic party. i think he could do a lot of good as chairman. how do you feel that would play into the GOP's hands?
Dean would bring an enthusiastic, energizing presence to the Democratic Party that wouldn't be there otherwise. He'll be known as a character, which is something you usually don't get in your party chairman.
Has anyone heard from Terry since the election?
barely heard from him before the election...
Clinton had him murdered and buried in a shallow grave next to Vince Foster.
Personally, I like Dean. I like him a lot. I like his enthusiasm and charisma. I like his progressive ideas. And I think he's probably wrong for the job.
If the Democratic party really wants to keep chasing the country to the center/right, Dean is the wrong guy for that.
If they want a resurgence of traditional liberalism, though, he'd probably be great.
I don't have much of an opinion about Dean running the Democratic Party, though I suspect he's the wrong person for the job. I will argue again that the party's future isn't in positioning, left vs. centrist. The Democrats already win on most of the issues. The next few years should be all about fashioning a message and staying on that message, relentlessly -- just as the Republicans did during the '90s. Dean may be a great cheerleader, but I'm not sure he's an especially sharp political strategist, and that's what the party needs now in its leadership.
I think the Terry has the right ideas but not the charisma to lead the party. I would support Dean in this role, he is still a player even after losing the nomination and has a lot of good ideas.
He did a really good job in Vermont, despite what was said, balancing fiscal and social issues.
And the guy is incredibly motivated, that kind of energy is desperately needed within the party right now.
Mr. Veil has conveniently summarized what I would have said: that if the Democrats want to do what it takes to start winning elections (i.e. moving the party towards more "centrist" positions), Dean's probably not the guy to do that. I do agree with you that he did a great job of mobilizing and energizing the liberal/progressive "base" of the party; I'm just not sure that's where the future of a successful Democratic party lies.
I think there's a difference between the candidate and the party. If the party can find a leader who can mobilize the base while finding a candidate who doesn't alienate the center (and can also mobilize the base), you can win elections. That's what the Republicans have done. Chasing the center doesn't seem too solid of a strategy as they are, by definition, a wishy-washy bunch.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have hit on a fairly successful strategy that will be difficult to counter (blaming society's ills on targeted minorities/depriving minority rights) given the principles of the democratic party. They also have a low-tax fetish that is very popular (who really wants to pay taxes?), even if it is driving down the dollar and killing foreign investment.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, success for the Democrats is not about positioning, it is about marketing. They already win on the issues. If they can develop a master strategy for communicating with the public on these issues and stick to it with discipline, just as the Republicans have over the last 20 years, then they will begin to win elections again. If they continue to fret about positioning, then they will become progressively less relevant and the Republicans will win elections by default.
Well, I think you have a valid point, IJ. And I'll also agree that Dean is a great organizer but not necessarily a good strategist.
And while marketing the party and establishing self-discipline are important, perhaps what we also want is somebody who can put the party in a position to out-Machiavelli guys like Karl Rove.
Thanks, I was beginning to wonder whether anyone followed the argument.
Marketing doesn't need to be as sinister as you suggest, though. It's more a matter of getting your point across clearly using powerful language. For example, whenever Republicans talk about "defending marriage," the Democrats counter with "civil rights." Over time I'd wager that the power of the words "civil rights" will edge out the vague concept of "defending marriage" in the minds of Americans. This stuff is not rocket science, or even a very sophisticated exercise in semantics. It's all pretty obvious, which is why I wonder why Democrats aren't doing it already.