[Jason Vines]

This article from Reuters reiterates opposition to Republicans doesn't stem from Democratic virtues:

Excite said:

Pat Wilkerson says U.S. troops and veterans are her first priority, believes family values are important and voted Republican in 2004. But in November she'll switch parties -- though not because Democrats have won her over.

"When I vote now, it's not who I'm voting for, it's who I'm voting against," said the 59-year-old administrator, adding she is fed up with the war in Iraq and wants troops home.

...

Polls show U.S. voters are overwhelmingly unhappy with the direction of the country.

In a New York Times/CBS poll released on Thursday, 77 percent of respondents said most members of Congress did not deserve re-election. Fifty percent said they would support a Democrat in November, when control of Congress is at stake, compared with 35 percent who said they would vote Republican.

That discontent has convinced some that control of Congress could change hands for the first time since 1994, when Republicans gained 54 seats amid a wave of voter anger. Democrats need to gain 15 seats in the House of Representatives and six Senate seats in November to win a majority.

...

Nathan Gonzales, political editor at the Rothenberg Political Report in Washington, said it's actually wrong to call this election an "anti-incumbent" race -- since only Republican incumbents are truly endangered.

Heartland districts held by Republicans are among the most at risk. Seven Republican seats now lean Democratic, including three in Indiana and one each in Iowa, Texas, Colorado and Arizona. Another 10 Republican seats nationwide are considered pure toss-ups, according to the Rothenberg Report.

No Democrat seat is considered at risk.

While voters in middle America tend to be more conservative than in other parts of the country, Gonzales said heartland voters angry with Republican incumbents are willing to vote for "the right Democrat."

[Sim]

The Democrats could do more to use this discontent with the GOP. They should present a convincing concept for their opposition -- just hoping they'd win only because people will vote against the GOP, but not because the Democrats are convincing, is a risky game.

[Jason Vines]

The Democrats have been brain dead on this issue. I've heard a quote--IIRC, from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid--saying all Democrats need to do is point out where Bush has failed; Democrats don't have to explain how they'd do better.

That might work this time, but it's hardly a strategy for future success.

[Sim]

Yes, sometimes such a strategy works. That is how former German Chancellor Schr?der won the elections against Helmut Kohl in 1998 -- he hardly presented his own concepts, his slogan was "we don't do everything differently, but we will do it better".

After he was elected, there were soon severe quarrels within his party about the direction to take; the left part of his party, represented by chairman Lafontaine wanted a more leftist approach, while Schr?der represented the more centrist "new labour" position inspired by Tony Blair.

In the end, Schr?der won and Lafontaine resigned (he later left the Social Dems and joined the Left Party), but this quarrel caused the Social Dems to lose all state elections throughout 1999.

So the Dems should better be prepared for power.

[-Oz-]

Both sides of the issue are being idiots, IMO. I'm not directly on either side, but both sides are playing dumb with this. Some action needs to be taken.

This post has been edited by -Oz-: 22 September 2006 - 11:57 PM

[Bondo]

Yes, they are going to have to say something. Its only going to get worse as the election nears. They won't want to vote if the party becomes a bunch of couch potatoes. People will be willing to vote for them, but the closer we get to November without plans in place voters will be increasingly turned off (the ones paying attention at any rate).

The torture thing was a prime example. They did nothing. One democrat of stature could have joined them, even if they had to walk away once the compromise became known.

The Helmut Kohl strategy could work, as could a decentralized plan with the candidates themselves extensively talking about the issues, but that just decreases your odds, and decreases your presence in the national news outlets. If I were them, I'd run on failure and the unseriousness of Bush governance. The failures of Katrina mirror the reconsruction failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Jason Vines]

Bondo said:

If I were them, I'd run on failure and the unseriousness of Bush governance. The failures of Katrina mirror the reconsruction failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That still leaves the problem of Democrats not standing for anything. "Bush is horrible" can get the Democrats through the 2006 elections, but it won't do anything for them long-term. Democrats need to engineer and promulgate a positive agenda for government.

Bondo said:

a decentralized plan with the candidates themselves extensively talking about the issues, but that just decreases your odds, and decreases your presence in the national news outlets.

I think, on the contrary, Democratic candidates should talk about issues that matter to constituents, to combat the Republican strategy of localizing each race. But, concurrently, the DNC needs to implement a coherent and positive national strategy.

[Bondo]

Jason Vines, on Sep 23 2006, 05:25 PM, said:

Democrats need to engineer and promulgate a positive agenda for government.

Certainly. But these are Democrats we are talking about. It's gonna take a while. In 2004 they needed a coherent message, a philosophy. Oddly, that may be easier now, because they have a deficit of policies. They are like Wesley Clark. He had a good candidacy until someone started asking him questions. If the Dems don't have something now, its too late for the election. What's infuriating is I thought they *were* supposed to have a contract with america by now. And they can't just coast until november either. So hit Bush where he's weak.

Here's Bush's Big List of Corruption in just the last week, compiled by Balloon Juice:

Reading Programs
Texas Tea
HUD

You could fit 15 of these things into a 30 second ad and have more to spare. There's no shortage.
Call it "Bush's Bridge to Nowhere." On the surface it seems a bit intellectual, but just hammer home the corruption and giant waste of money.

Quote

I think, on the contrary, Democratic candidates should talk about issues that matter to constituents, to combat the Republican strategy of localizing each race. But, concurrently, the DNC needs to implement a coherent and positive national strategy.

Yup. If they only go local, Pelosi and every other democrat in office is going to look like a fool.