« RIP Terry Schiavo | Main | Thoughts on Hegemony »

March 31, 2005

Winning Without Gains

So back to the Democracy Corps poll (no Josh Marshall-esque, never-ending cliffhangers here!). Let me go through the relevant results and then get to thoughts. The Republican party rates about 4% higher than we do, while Bill Clinton rates a smidge higher than the Republican party and George W clocks in at .4% above him (yes, I know we're leaving statistical significance here). Weirdly, when asked who they'll vote for in the 06 midterms, a Democrat or a Republican, respondents chose the good guys over the not-so-good, 46%-45%. When thinking about the presidential, Hillary beats Jeb, 50%-47%, and the hypothetical Bill v. George match-up gives Clinton the easy edge, 51%-46%.

When asked what direction the country should be heading in, Bush's or something totally different, totally different won effortlessly, 52%-45%. From there we go to comparative polls, the graphs of which I posted here. They show, basically, that the Democrats win on specific domestic issues, but Republicans win on general attributes ("know what they stand for", etc). Foreign policy wasn't a major focus of the poll.

So what we've got is a party whose individuals do just fine (remember kids, we've won the popular vote in three of the last four presidentials, and we would've made congressional gains in 2004 save for a bout of illegal redistricting in Texas) but the party itself, as a standalone structure, may well be more hurt than help to those carrying its flag. That is, of course, a problem. In some ways it returns to the argument I was having with Matt a few days ago. Democrats, right now, are doing an excellent job of foiling Bush's legislative strategy and thus protecting Americans from privatization. But that success is not conferring benefits on the party itself. Maybe that's just because few Americans are tuned in, and when we run against privatization in 2006 we'll see the gains. In fact, I'd bet there's an element of that in the mix. But when total success is doing you no good whatsoever, you know there's a problem.

So what's the answer? Blah blah party-building blah blah blah. But in the specific, we really have to be more overt about tying our opposition to our party, which is to say embracing what we oppose and what we support as characteristics of Democrats rather than the battle lines of a particular congressional battle. That's why we need some general Democratic media representatives like Dean really pounding away at the connection between this fight and the Democratic/Republican philosophies. Beyond that, that's why we really need to increase the coherence between the Democratic thinkers (like the national security experts at Democracy Arsenal, which has now been recommended by everyone but me) and ordinary Democrats. Beyond that, it's back to Bill Bradley's pleas to build a stable pyramid of our own and create an institution where our party is stronger than its candidates.

Yeah, I know, this is all standard. And I hate to be a Cassandra about all this, but I fear we're getting so excited about defeating Bush's Social Security plan that we're not noticing how little good it's doing our party. What we've got, thus far, is just a good first step. We've put the President on the defensive and found a ripe issue for the election. But you know what? We've had good first steps before. It's all part of our inverted pyramid: rather than building a solid foundation for the next election, we just hope that whatever's going on at the moment will be enough to take down the right. It rarely is. What's going on at the moment has to also boost us. Gingrich understood that, and used the defeat of health care as a starting point to nationalize and sell a Republican message about limited government and establishment hubris. We're being presented with the same opportunity, and we need to approach it with the same vision. This poll should be plenty of evidence for that.

March 31, 2005 in Polls | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8343b15be53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Winning Without Gains:

Comments

what the thing suggests to me is that the base itself is the problem. don't tell anyone I said that, though.

Posted by: praktike | Mar 31, 2005 3:01:09 PM

What we've got, thus far, is just a good first step. We've put the President on the defensive and found a ripe issue for the election. But you know what? We've had good first steps before. It's all part of our inverted pyramid: rather than building a solid foundation for the next election, we just hope that whatever's going on at the moment will be enough to take down the right. It rarely is. What's going on at the moment has to also boost us.

a) I wouldn't knock a good start. It's a good start. Roll with it.

b) If you want tightly disciplined, highly focused, get in line or get out of the way politics, I'm sorry, you needed to pick door #2. We are a lot of ideas in all their glorious complexities and what we represent is the idea that everyone deserves a fair hearing, and then we'll do something. If you don't like the messiness, really, we're probably not for you.

c) Now, could we do a better job trying to influence perceptions? Absolutely. When people think about our answers (social security, right to choose, more peace/less war)we generally win; when they think about who likes flags and patriotism and Mom and Apple Pie, we don't. I like flags, Mom and Apple Pie. I even love America and what it stands for, in all it's glorious contradictions. We need a better ad agency. I know that can come off as cheap or cynical, but seriously. We need a good, common-sense presentation of who Dems are and what we stand for. And I know there are ad agencies full of liberals. There must be an answer there somewhere. That's how you take advantage of a good start.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 31, 2005 3:44:51 PM

A lot of attention has been focused recently on the schism between small government republicans and the religious right over the Schiavo controversy. These two groups do have very different (although not totally incompatible) world views that have historically been held together by opposition to the 'Liberal Agenda.'

I bring this up because in my estimation while the Republican base is composed almost entirely of these two groups, the Democratic party is composed of a multitude of small groups with loosely compatible agendas. If this is so, is the message problem you refer to intrinsic in the structure of the party?

Disciplining your message too much might drive off some of these splinters, while not disciplining it creates electoral issues you have correctly identified.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Mar 31, 2005 6:01:28 PM

amateurxxx

analxxx

nimexxx

asianxxx

bbwxxx

bdsmxxx

bigboobsxxx

bigcocksxxx

bigtitsxxx

bisexualxxx

bizarrexxx

blackxxx

blondesxxx

blowjobxxx

bondagexxx

brunettexxx

bustyxxx

cartoonxxx

centerfoldxxx

cumshotxxx

doggystylexxx

doublepenetrationxxx

drunkgirlsxxx

ebonyebonyxxx

ethnicxxx

facialxxx

fatxxx

feetxxx

femdomxxx

fetishxxx

gangbangxxx

gayasianxxx

gaybearxxx

gayblackxxx

gayfreechatxxx

gaycollegexxx

gayebonyxxx

gayfreesexxxx

gayhairyxxx

gayhunksxxx

gaylatinoxxx

gaymaturexxx

gayolderxxx

gaytwinkxxx

gaywebcamxxx

gayyoungxxx

groupxxx

hairygirlsxxx

handjobxxx

hardcorexxx

hentairxxx

hotgirlxxx

hotguyxxx

indianxxx

interracialxxx

latinoxxx

legsxxx

esbianxxx

livexxx

mangaxxx

masturbation

maturexxx

milfrxxx

olderwomenxxx

orgyxxx

pantiesxxx

pantyhosexxx

petitexxx

pornmoviesxxx

pornstarsxxx

pornvideosxxx

realityxxx

redheadxxx

sextoysxxx

sexvideosxxx

shavedxxx

shemalexxx

smokingxxx

amateurxxx

teenxxx

trannyxxx

transsexualxxx

upskirtxxx

voyeurvoyeur

webcamsxxx

youngxxx

Posted by: dfgh | May 29, 2006 1:33:58 AM

sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES

sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES

sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES


VIDEOSBLOG
VIDEOSBLOG

VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG VIDEOSBLOG

Posted by: JEROGatch | Sep 3, 2006 3:08:37 AM

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/index.html

Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 2:44:29 AM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 2:47:16 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.