How the Democrats Didn’t Lose
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in NewsTo be sure, this election represented a complete Republican meltdown. The party which seemed robust and idea-driven just two years ago felt sick and empty this year. But give Democrats credit. Somehow, either by divine accident or brilliant strategy, they successfully minimized their many shortcomings while maximizing the failures of their opponents.
How’d they do it? I have a theory.
1) They used not having a coherent plan or vision to their advantage. They let each individual candidate win on his/her own merits while forcing the Republicans to run on the GOP’s record. So liberal Democrats ran as liberals in left-leaning areas and conservative Democrats ran as conservatives in right-leaning areas and no candidate had to worry about the national party laying out a distracting agenda.
2) They kept their leadership pretty quiet. Other than Kerry’s flub, the Democrats did a good job keeping Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Howard Dean and other usually shrill leaders even-keeled and mainly out of the limelight. Some would say this is because the media gave them a pass but, even if that’s true, they were smart enough to know when not to be seen.
3) The out-of-touch but far-too-engaged leftwing netroots expended all their energy early on fighting Lieberman (and other Democrats like Texas Representative Henry Cuellar). Whether the early victory over Lieberman made them complacent or depleted their ability to make noise on a national level, the netroots did not make themselves nearly as big of a factor (or distraction) in this election as they did in 2004. Even publicity hounds Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore were strangely absent from the national spotlight during the last few months of the campaign. Without the leftwing running around and scaring voters away, the Democrats had an easier time of it.
4) They never formulated a real plan on Iraq. I criticized this up and down and back again. I said they are forfeiting their chance at victory because they have no Iraq plan and no greater vision on the War on Terror. But the thing is, plans can be critiqued and compared. A generically unclear but “different� plan actually holds an advantage over the specifically unclear current plan. Are Democrats going to ask for an immediate withdrawal? A phased withdrawal? A partition of Iraq? No one can really say – and that actually helped the Dems. They kept the focus on the need for change rather than on what that change would be.
If you told me two years ago that the Democrats would sweep back into power in 2006, I’d have suggested you seek professional help. Heck, if you’d told me six months ago that the Dems would succeed in retaking the House and Senate (most probably), I’d have rolled my eyes and laughed.
I didn’t think they could do it without a unified vision for America. I didn’t think they could do it so long as the leadership positions were held by devoted liberals. I simply didn’t think they could connect with middle America. Obviously I was wrong. I underestimated how fast and how total the Republican collapse would be. But I also underestimated the Democrats ability to run a deceptively disciplined campaign.
Well done, Democrats. Now don’t screw it up
This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
You guys got your clock cleaned. Just admit it and move on.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Hey Blue, I was rooting for the Dems.
November 8th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
Congratulations then.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
Great title. Great post.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
One point I’d like to make.
A plan for Iraq is something IMHO that doesn’t exist for EITHER party. The Republican “We Must Win” plan isn’t a plan. In fact, the Democratic, “Phased withdrawal” is more specific that “Must Win.”
Let’s face it, “phased withdrawal”, at least, implies inquiry and planning on what to do. “Win” is just (surprise) cheerleading
November 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
You are wrong on all four points.
1.) They have ideas. The first 100 hours. I’m sure you must have heard aobut it.
2.) Their leadership was campaining heavily. More so than their Republican counterparts in many cases.
3.) Netroots had an amazing success rate this election. They won several races that the Democratic leadership ignored and several others came amazingly close. Also, they built up the infastructure for 2008 in many areas.
4.) They have a plan for Iraq. It’s 528 pages long.
November 8th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
This election signals the reemergence of the moderate! After barely choosing the evil we knew over the one we didn’t in 2004, we can hope for some real choice in 2008. Now if only we can get Iraq
November 8th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
oops didn’t finish…
If only we can get Iraq behind us and have an election on some other issues.
November 8th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
C.S.
1) that was one of many plans … there was nothing adopted by all the candidates. Each was free to run on his/her own ideas
2) sure, but they did so with discipline and only where it helped … that’s unusual for the Dems
3) Hey, if the netroots had success, I’m glad they were able to do it without drawing the kind of negative attention they’ve received in the past. But they certainly didn’t get much national attention (like they did with Lamont v. Lieberman), and that’s what I was referring to.
4) The candidates were not all pledged to the plan you mention and were free to expouse a large variety of ideas — there might be A plan but that doesn’t make it THE plan for Democrats. There is no THE plan and that didn’t hurt the party at all.
Anyway, I’m looking at all this on a macro-level not a micro one — how the election played on the national stage and in the national media. The key I think is that good candidates made up for a weak party.
November 8th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
So where there are plans, (100 hours, 528 pages of Iraq / terrorism), you ignore them. Where netroots have success, ($1.5 million raised), you ignore it. Where the leadership campaigns, (in ways you agree helped the party), you insult them.
You make is seem that allowing part members to have differing opinions is a sign of weak leadership. Forcing everyone to walk lock step behind the leadership is how you get bad ideas. I think 6 years under Bush would have made that clear.
November 8th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Hey CS, wow, what is your deal? ASC is giving points to the Democrats, points to the Netroots and generally seems to be quite positive about the whole thing. Chill out, man. His point regarding the netroots is true. In years past, a lot of folks in the far left netroots made a lot of moves that scared a lot of middle of the road Americans, which, frankly, most Americans are. ASC made a point that the netroots were quiet for this election and didn’t make a lot of the usual noise and, as a result, a lot more Americans were willing to go Democratic. What he also said was that hey, if the netroots involved themselves and helped win a few races, great! But they did so in a manner that did not scare away moderate to conservative voters in moderate to conservative states.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:34 pm
I would add that, considering the turnout, a good number of Republican voters stayed home. This was done to send a message to the party on fiscal responsibility, immigration, and corruption. Was the message received? Stay tuned.
November 8th, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Hey Guys,
Just go out n get blasted. Celebrate, howl at the moon, kill some brain cells. You both make good points, but don’t over-analyze. What we need now is ACTION. Remember; I got 2 kids ready for college, a work force that no comprende mas, real estate taxes that would finance most families for a lifetime south of the border, what are they gonna do for me? Not asking for much, just don’t make it more difficult. Stop bankrupting my kids future, etc…
BTW, yes the Dems didn’t shoot themselves in the foot, and the Netroots folks not only raised alot of money, they seem to have their
act together and not just for super libs, either. Kos commented on this blog b4 the election, pissed off at some generalities being made about ‘their’ candidates, reminding us that they backed some moderates as well. Do they really have that much influence ? It’s pretty impressive if they do.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
I hope the new leadership is ready. Standing on the sidelines and carping about everything is a different universe than making the decisions and being held accountable to the results.
For several years the dems have been pointing their fingers at the repubs saying “don’t blame me - it’s their fault and we’re powerless to prevent it” (sigh). Now we finally get to find out if they’re full of substance or fluff. Should be interesting.
I am a little optimistic as many new dems reflect a mixture of the best ideas from both parties.
November 8th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Alan
>>
Never have truer words been spoken. Allan, you are ususally wrong due to your penchant for stereotypes and over generalizations. I guess thats what happens when you try to create another tribal group of us against them. I believe in the middle, just not your articulation of it. Your general aim seems to be just another group that deems itself special (rationale) and looks down their nose at others. In this case, its the Democrats but tommorrow it could be the Republicans. Backhanded complements are not complements.
Rick
November 8th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Alan - you complete son of a bitch. how dare you, sir? Do you have no shame? Were you raised by carnies or just good old fashioned west texas gypsies?
Usually, it is a simple fact, you are retarded, but you have reached new levels of retardation. You are almost a vegetable…nay, you are almost a mineral — nothing more than a bulbous fleshy lump emitting wrongness.
Please, kill yourself immediately so your seed can not contaminate and ruin that portion of humanity that has managed to stand erect and use fire and the wheel.
(I’m not sure what you said, but I wanted in on the fun.)
November 9th, 2006 at 6:59 am
With the exception of running on a lack of Iraq plan, I agree with Alan.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Dos,
That’s good sh*t.
But I already have kids, thus my seed is contanminating the earth as we speak. In fact, I’ve been training my 3-year old to over-generalize and stereotype in a quest to create a new tribe. I think I’ll call us the Centrites.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
>>>In fact, I’ve been training my 3-year old to over-generalize and stereotype in a quest to create a new tribe. I think I’ll call us the Centrites
November 9th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Dang, cut off. The rest….
LMAO. Too good!
The Dem’s best on-the-ground move was learning from and emulating the 2004 GOP GOTV efforts. Nothin’ like levelling the playing field to make it a match! They did a good job there of not getting suckered twice.