Taking back our country

DISCUSSION AND COMMENTS

"We must note our national problems are not based in districts and states where we won.  Rather, these obstacles are based in districts and states where we did not win.

"The 50 United States share very few common values.  There are some shared priorities, but they are not held across the board, and the values of urban California are minimally embraced.  It is highly questionable whether or not the 50 states are a "nation" in the traditional political science definition.  Blue and red districts are not speckled from coast to coast.  Rather, they are clumped.  The Repubs can't break through in our districts and states, no matter how hard they try.  And, as we just saw, we find high difficulty breaking through in their districts.

"Thus, if we want to suggest values that resonate nationwide, we must start by assessing the values of the districts currently held by Republicans.  Starting with the districts we won only adds to our own confidence and the sense we can convert others.  Rather, to pursue Herb's suggestion, we would need to develop a lowest common denominator of values assessing Republican-dominated districts.

"I suggest we use central Mississippi, rural Nebraska, upstate New Hampshire, southern Orange County, the ranch lands of Texas, suburban Colorado, northern Nevada and the entire state of Alaska as the amalgam to analyze.  If Santa Clara County's Democrats wish to impact these districts, we first must understand their value systems.  These are not areas open to political proselytizing from the holier-than-thou Bay Area.  "Seek first to understand," is the language embraced by many Silicon Valley managers.

"I am very glad to participate in the proposed discussions, especially since I am able to carry your voice formally to the Winter DNC meeting.  After looking at where we suffered our most terrible losses, I lean towards weak organizing as the reason for defeat, not weak messages.  We were beaten on the ground, door-to-door.  Basically, many states like Missouri and Florida just did not have the local infrastructure to win an all-out targeted Republican war.

"In districts we lost, it is highly rare to find a truly functional Democratic club with precinct captains who are assigned measurable responsibilities.  County Committees rarely implement strategic plans based on accountability-based work plans.

"The best way to impact the 230 Congressional Districts we need to change is to share a Democratic Party ground-based model that can work on a Congressional district scale.  And, by the way, most of the voters across the United States highly value "family issues" as a major reason to choose candidates.  Linking the Democratic Party with family values is a problem pointed out at the DNC's Western Caucus meeting last May.  I believe I reported this to you in early summer.  Overall, Democratic campaign efforts flopped terribly with voters who note "values" as their guiding electoral force, rather than the dispassionate concerns that often motivate hard-core West Coast Democratic activists.

"Democrats who voted (in the November election) are not, in my opinion, our primary target audience.  They need to be thanked.  They need to be invited to greater involvement.  But, overall, they do not need to be convinced.  They saw the campaign.  They got themselves to the polls.  They voted.

"To change the outcome of elections, our target audience needs to be the Democrats who did not vote or who did not vote Democratic.  To a lesser extent, we also must focus on decline-to-state voters and people who could have registered to vote, but did not.

"In striving to take back the federal branches of government for the Democrats, it will not be fruitful to assume Californian values are held across the country.  Nor can we believe that economics are the greatest motivators for all people.  California frustration with national losses must be purged, but we must focus wisely to achieve successful implementation of our national goals.

"And, as far as practicalities go, here are a few things to note:
1) There are hardly any members of the House or Senate who hold votes on the DNC.
2) Hardly any of California's 185 partisan nominees hold votes on the CDP's Executive Board (though all hold convention votes).
3) There are zero Democrats in California who have won election from a district that does not hold a Democratic registration plurality.
4) Nearly all funds raised for Democratic campaigns come from sources minimally represented on the official decision-making levels of the Party.

"If we are talking about getting elected officials to embrace a message, activist leaders have direct influence over Party chairs and district/county chairs and to an extent the DNC chair, but the Party as a Party minimally includes the elected officials who represent us or the donors who currently fund campaigns.

"Secondly, we have enough time to develop pilot projects to be implemented in Santa Clara County, the Bay Area and the State of California before trying to influence the official body of the DNC from top - down.  Practically, if the state chair (Art Torres) and the state Executive Director (Kathy Bowler) are not on board it becomes challenging for the other DNC reps from California to count to the majority needed to force votes.

"I am very supportive of developing themes, messages, etc.  I will fight for you on the national and regional levels.  I also know the practical bureaucracies of the official Democratic Party structures, the petty fiefdoms and the obstacles that can be faced.

"Leading by example on the local level may be the best way to achieve change on the national level.  Demonstrated success rather than floated ideas seems to be a way to build consensus among DNC members.  Our Democratic brothers and sisters lack the nuts and bolts and the local infrastructure needed to win campaigns.  Too often they depend on outside media buys with little resources provided for any kind of local ground operations."

Democrats: the Party of honest FAMILY VALUES!

"What was the message?  We voted FOR the Bush tax cut, voted to support the war....where were we different?  We were beaten on the ground because we had no message, and there was no motivating reason for those who traditionally vote democratic to get out and vote.

"What was the message in Minnesota? It was the GOP's ability to turn a memorial service (Paul Wellstone's) into an ISSUE, which it should not have been.  Coleman won the election there because of the independent vote, which we never got our message to,  we never gave the independents of Minnesota a GOOD enough reason to vote for Mondale.  With Wellstone they knew what the message was.

"Once again...I would like to resonate with the voters in this country, and once again I will point out that we have an issue to push right now, and that is the alternative minimum tax (AMT).  This affects the policeman in Nebraska, the rancher in Wyoming, the nurse in Colorado..and on and on.

"I believe that if we can find ONE issue that resonates, we can move those groups you spoke about.  I firmly believe that we have a opportunity to do so NOW and start to gain a strong hold.  One issue becomes the way for those non engaged voters to look at the entire democratic platform, and hear us on other issues.

"I do think we need to compile a 'how to' manual, complete with issues, spin and communication strategy.  This could be something that we get to the DNC and Central Committees as well as Dems that want to get involved.

"This effort of ours can be very successful if we also take a closer look at how the GOP has been able to dominate the issues, how Rove has directed them to do what they are now doing.

"For a one sentence statement that defines us:

Democrats stand for a strong economy, accountable government and a FAIR tax system.

" (I know...environment isn't here, health care isn't here,  Social Security and more, but I feel that is part of the problem -- we have TOO many issues we focus on IN OUR NATIONAL MESSAGE, all of which are important, but they get lost in the 'sound bite' world we now live in, and we need to find those issues that play from coast to coast and in the middle)."

"I disagree with Chris that there cannot be a National message.  There are plenty of issues on which Democrats across the country can agree.  Unfortunately, we haven't done as good of a job of formulating a single message or promoting it as the Republicans have their message.  Their main trick is Repetition.  If they say it often enough, it becomes fact and everyone believes it.  We need to try the same thing.

"One of the things that makes it difficult for Democrats is that we have a tremendous diversity in priorities and we have always welcomed that and celebrated it.  That doesn't allow for a cohesive national message.  I think we have to utilize that in our message or perhaps focus on the things that unite us all.  It might mean some people feeling that their messages are being suppressed, but it is for the good of the whole party.

"Chris suggests that local grass roots organizational structure is the key.  While that is tremendously important, and some regions of the country need help in that area, I believe that the campaigns of the future will no longer have obvious geographic boundaries.  I feel very strongly that we miss a great opportunity here in Santa Clara County and other Bay Area counties by focusing on small, local races at the expense of national races.  When there is no compelling, competitive Congressional or Senate race, we should be figuring out ways to mobilize our considerable volunteer base to help in places where they do have them.  For example, our phone banks can be used to call voters in Cardoza's district, or even in Missouri, Minnesota, Florida, etc.  By offering our services to campaigns around the country, an organization can be set up to direct efforts to the places where help is needed the most.  MoveOn.org is heading in this direction, starting this year with their national phone bank for Bill Bradbury in Oregon (they phoned 65,000 Democrats in the 5 days before Nov 5).  This is one area that SCCDCC can help future victory.  In fact, the discussion on getting the DNC to better use technology is an excellent step in this direction, and one way the CDP can export our success to the rest of the country."

"I think our goal is not to win *everywhere* but to win more places than we do now.  Just as Eshoo can win election with different levels of support in different parts of her district, we can win the Senate without being supported everywhere.  Texas is a great example.  While it is tempting to say that we might as well give up on Texas like Republicans give up on the Bay Area, I believe there are enough constituents in different regions of Texas that share our values, enabling us to compete pretty well.  It is our job to speak to them and to motivate them to vote.  My belief is that if *everyone* voted, we would always win.  Why do we lose?  Because the Republicans are better at motivating their supporters than we are ours.  If we develop a more cohesive message and show that we mean it, we can bring out the voters that will ultimately lead us to victory.

"Clearly our message has to be formulated with national differences in mind.  We can't make our message be gun control and abortion.  But *most* of the principles of the Democratic party are supported in most regions of the country.  Ask the average person who voted for GW their position on many issues and they side with the Democrats.  Why then don't they vote that way?  Because the Republicans are allowed to frame the debate and we don't offer them a clear agenda.    

"We need to decide what that message should be and then use focus groups to test them and refine them until we find something that resonates all over the country.  Then we need to use repetition and media to get that message out, continually making issues out of each vote the Republicans make that is counter to these values.

"One thing I have concluded after the November election is that we won't be successful trying to hide our true feelings on issues.  The only way to win is with *passion.*  One thing you can say about the Republicans is that they are truly passionate about their viewpoints.  We need to defend our positions with true passion.  The only thing that poll about being "too liberal" indicates to me is that we've allowed the Republicans to define what is meant by liberal.  If we make a concerted effort to explain what it means to be "liberal" - caring for the concerns of average Americans; creating a compassionate government that provides essential life-improving services; protecting our environment so that future generations can enjoy the rain forests and oceans and mountains; etc - then those polls will change.

"While I previously said that we need to find values which are universal to everyone, I didn't mean it exactly as it sounded.  I think there are universal values in the sense that a majority of people everywhere agree with them.  Clearly, there will always be a large fraction that feels differently.  But our role is not to adapt to that group, but to appeal to our constituents with an uplifting message.  If everyone really understood where we stand (that liberal isn't a dirty word, but means we care about them), then a majority would always support us.  Perhaps we would still lose elections in Texas or Oklahoma, but we would win more than we lose across the nation.

"Chris had it right; our problem isn't with those who disagree with us, but with energizing those who agree.  If we are losing elections in Oregon, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Hawaii, then we are doing something wrong.  I'm less concerned about losing in Georgia."

"To understand the loss of the Senate, take a look at the results from the Senate race in Missouri.  Democrat Carnahan won 75 percent of the vote in the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City.  That's not an exaggeration.  She received three of every four votes cast in those fine, nationally-respected cities.  Overwhelming numbers that even put our major California cities to shame.  Overall Carnahan won the vote in 28 Missouri counties.  And, the Republican Jim Talent won the vote in 88 counties.  Yes, again those numbers are accurate.  88-28.  The "heartland" spoke in Missouri.  And it told its urban centers to jump off a rock.  There are 116 counties in Missouri.  Talent won 80 percent of them.

"Clearly, the message that resonated strongly in Missouri's urban population centers was not well-received elsewhere in the state.  Pretty tough to complain that Missouri's urban voters and county leaders did not do their jobs.  75 percent is overwhelming by any standard.  We got schooled in the small counties that make up the bulk of Missouri's population.  This trend is a snapshot of the national voting patterns, and the power still held by non-urban voters nationally."

"I could not agree more with Herb, David, and Jacquie -- the Democratic Party desperately needs a strong and consistent National message.  The message must be positive.  And it must comport with our guiding philosophy that "a responsible government should exist to help people" (my contribution to Herb's "ten words or less" challenge).  There is no doubt in my mind that honing the message will take time and effort.  But I submit that we have absolutely no excuse as a Party for failing to develop a national message.        
 
"I agree with Chris that it is difficult to assess values that apply to all Americans across the board.  But answering that question is not how a Party must craft a strong, consistent message.  We're not trying to get EVERY American voter to vote Democrat.  Nor should we be trying to appeal to some lowest common denominator.  
 
"We should instead be trying to maintain a Party that has wide popular appeal to a vast majority of Americans.  A further opinion about our goals -- Our long-term goal is not just "50 plus 1."  That's the goal of the Republican Party, because they know that their message will NOT resonate with the majority of voters nationwide.  Rather, our goal is to take back the Congress, and the White House, and stay there.  The Democrats controlled the House for forty years prior to the defeats in 1994.  We should be trying to craft a message that will bring the Democrats back.  
 
"In fact, 1994 provides a model for crafting a message.  The "Contract With America" resonated with many Americans as a message.  A theme.  The Republican mistake, which led in part to President Clinton's victory in 1996, was that the Republicans overplayed their hand once they gained power.  But their MESSAGE was clear.  And the Republicans have not relinquished control of the House since, because they continue to maintain a consistent message.
 
"Addressing a few of Chris' other points, yes, measuring the values of voters will change depending on the level of government being measured.  Yes, residents of the Sunnyvale mobile home parks have different values than do many residents in Los Gatos or Palo Alto.  Tip O'Neill (and many, many others, both before and after him) always said that all politics is local.  That hasn't changed.  
 
"But that doesn't mean attempting to craft a strong, consistent national message is somehow valueless.  The strategy employed by the Republicans in 1994 proves the point.  And the Republican victory of 1994 was based on the strategy used in OUR victory, and OUR national message, in 1992:  "Its the Economy, Stupid."  I do not read Chris' comments to suggest that we should not, or cannot, develop a national message -- if that were the case, then we would have abandoned any notion of a Democratic Party long ago, and we would simply be a grouping of factions "in Opposition" to a national Republican Party.  I read Chris' comments to mean that developing a national message is a great challenge.
 
"It is a challenge worth taking head-on, right now.  A message energizes the base of the Party.  It energizes Party organization.  It brings new blood into the organization.  It gives people a reason to vote.  It gives people a reason to work toward a common goal.  A strong and consistent national message also serves to galvanize voters.  It also dramatically reinforces Party organization, "on the ground, door-to-door."  The Party sent money hand-over-fist to Florida -- over $10 million -- for use in the Governor's race.  We lost.  Even in Dade County, we lost.  Yes, we lacked organization, and we must work to strengthen that organization.  But we also lacked a strong, consistent message.  A message serves to solve the problem at both ends.          
 
"At the end of the proverbial day, different regions will have different priorities.  San Francisco's interests will diverge from St. Louis and Chicago and New York, and those interests will diverge from towns in Nebraska and Idaho and Alabama.  "All politics is local," and much of the business of Congress is about working through the different priorities of different legislators on behalf of different constituencies across the country.  NONE of this means that we should abandon hope in crafting a national message.  If anything, the only way that we can ensure that the priorities applied in Congress comport with our core values is to be sure that we HAVE a national, unifying message.  
 
"I am not saying that we should use the fire-bomb-throwing strategy used by Newt in 1994.  We need a message and a strategy that is strong and confident, not shrill or bombastic.  The message and strategy also must include key policy initiatives that will resonate broadly, while at the same time adhering to our core values.  Jacquie's point regarding the AMT is certainly one possibility, though it is one that will require educating a lot of voters (many of whom may not know what the AMT is even if they pay it, and many associate it to a significant degree with the Silicon Valley problem of applying the AMT to value vested stock options more so than with a middle-class-wide problem).  Eliminating the most regressive tax of all -- the payroll tax -- may be another possibility worth exploring.  A new Homeland Security Department was a Democratic idea (Sen. Byrd notwithstanding).  It was co-opted as much because the Republicans have brainwashed Americans with their strong, consistent message that they are somehow the party of national security, as due to the fact that we overplayed our hand in holding up the new Department at a time when the vast majority of Americans are truly scared for our future.  We should NOT lose any more such battles.  With a clear message, our agenda will CLEARLY be our own.   

"Crafting a national message, and a national strategy, is a great challenge.  It is a challenge that we must face if the Democratic Party is to continue to stand for something.

"The County Committee can initiate a fundraising effort on its own.  Rules relating to soft money donations are changing significantly at this stage, though the full impact of McCain-Feingold will be unknown until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on it, likely in about 1 1/2 years.  Under McCain-Feingold, however, it is my understanding that state and local party organizations can raise significant amounts of money, subject to Federal disclosure requirements to the extent that we ever intend to coordinate with a Federal campaign.  If the idea of a headquarters and the development of other initiatives that require funding is the goal of the Committee, then this is the way to go.  Further, by raising some significant level of funds, the Committee becomes even more relevant to elected officials for a variety of reasons."

"It was not political skill nor profound philosophy that allowed Bush's party to accumulate several more federal seats and the control of Congress. It was  their overall control of the presentation to the public, and the spending of  tax payer money on campaigning. There was  extravagant use of Air Force One  by the President, and there was use of  cabinet members time. The media gave  Bush much face time, and TV did not report  Democratic commentary and  campaign statements.  PBS reported on Bush travels and did not report  Democratic activity. The action was predominantly high expense level  cheating.  Many voters were misled and they also showed poor judgment in  filtering the information they received..... High level democrats seem to  have been intimidated into subduing their anger and not fighting.  Even a few Republicans cannot stand it. Perhaps the Green party is the best  hope for the peace movement.

"The result of this election is that many badly needed social reforms are  delayed.  Recovery is likely but not certain. More years and more hard work  will be required to build and advance our otherwise admirable nation. There  is much to recover from and much to do.      PLUS:  

"The predilection of Bush to expand the defense budget, at the cost of more  helpful, more peace oriented programs, is very bad for our country, and it is too bad he was given encouragement in the recent election."

"Today's corporate balance sheet only shows certain factors.   Missing from the corporate balance sheets are the so called 'externalities'.  These are, to name a few:

• Impact of corporate activity on long and short range environmental considerations.
• Impact on employment- how many lay offs will result from each corporate merger?
• Impact on quality of education and need for or abandonment of schools.
• Impact on human careers.
• Impact on quality of living for others.
• Impact on ethics and beauty and humanity's long range future. .
• Impact on politics by corporate political giving.

"Jack Welch (former Chair of General Electric), for example, when asked by Charlie Rose what happened to the executives he fired, or the rivers he polluted, had no answer, simply shrugged his shoulders. Welch's balance sheet should include those factors.

"Action Step:  We need to require an Economic Impact Report,  parallel to Environmental Impact Report.  The environmental report requirement has caused real estate and transportation developers to offer many mitigations, such as setbacks and landscaping.

"In the economic realm we can expect mitigations such as retraining programs, aid in employee relocation, building of new schools, and publicizing the political gift giving."

"The President is in charge of the 'national security' agenda which is extremely important to most Americans post 9/ll.  He skillfully used Iraq to dominate the conversation leading up to this election.  Our objections were not spelled out or formulated well (except for a few people like Sen. Byrd).  Nancy Pelosi gives us an opportunity to speak to this issue with confidence. We can take a stand for international treaties and international cooperation and ram this home. We need to tell people that creating and working with allies is a far better way to fight terrorism then standing alone in the world  with everyone angry at our arrogance.

"We should also take a stand for civil liberties at home.  This may not be the most popular position but it will attract the press, the intellectuals and it's also right.  We should not be intimidated by the fear message put forth by the Republicans.  Our courts are good and they have worked dealing with terrorists in the past.  We must stand up for the fundamental rights of all Americans.

"The Republicans do have a simple message:  Lower taxes and less government.  In addition they stand for a strong national defense.

"There is also a natural Democratic message.  It's a positive message as opposed to the Republican's negative one (except they are positive for national defense).  We stand for the things that make life better for people: a good environment (clean air and water and food); good education available at a reasonable price for all; access to decent health care for every American; honest business practices; fair taxes (and this includes a real attack on the AMT and the huge tax breaks for the rich).  Someone told me that Anna Eshoo was asked whether the Democratic Party was going to move to the "left" (meant obviously in a pejorative way).  She replied: wanting clean air and water, good schools, accessible health care, protecting our natural resources and treasures is not left, or right or middle of the road.  It is just good common sense.  To me that is the slogan we need (only cleaned up by someone with a gift for words).

"We should not be intimidated by the power of the President.  He is politically astute, liked by Americans and seen as a regular guy.  But we have the more powerful message, at least on domestic issues, and we need to simplify it, to repeat it over and over with a strong national leader to voice it.  What an opportunity for a John Kerry or someone like him to take center stage.  Will he?

"Democrats, usually sparked by labor unions, have always been more successful 'on the ground' than Republicans.  This time, however, in Georgia for instance, I read that they had many, many volunteers out in the field.  Their volunteers were 'inspired' by their message.  We need a solid message to inspire our workers in the same way.  Clinton can help -- and those people aspiring to the Presidency.  Also Gore and local leaders too."

"Further to my last email, I just want to say that I think all options under discussion are worth exploring, and the idea of approaching elected officials for aid is a good one.  The idea of a roundtable discussion with elected officials biannually, to discuss various issues, is also quite good.  I'm just concerned at a tactical level that the way they're approached is important -- we're more likely to be successful by enlisting electeds' help in fundraising, rather than phrasing the request as a demand for a donation directly from their campaigns.

"Finally (just so you don't think I've gone too far off the deep end), I'm not suggesting that we transform the SCCDCC into a soft money machine. I'm proposing that we take a good look at the possibility of expanding fundraising activities broadly, with an eye to a headquarters/infrastructure, paying for part-time interns from local schools to assist in message-related activities, and/or other priorities as decided by the committee."