The DNC Needs A Dean Redux
A couple of commentaries appeared in the media this week from two divergent factions in the party, both in agreement. Governor Terry McAuliffe and Howard Dean both went public with rather extensive statements that the DNC needs rebuilding. We must have messaging on our accomplishments and what we stand for.
McAuliffe spoke quite critically of the failure of our National Party to address the challenges of our struggling middle class and the need for major economic reforms. This from a guy who I always viewed as a brilliant fund raiser but shallow thinker. He did leave our party in great financial shape. Maybe I was wrong about the shallowness.
I think he really understands the failed leadership of our Party here in a time of our most desperate need for economic reform. He also spoke of our President’s brilliant record on so many fronts which were ignored by the DNC’s non-existent messaging program.
Adding insult to injury, the clueless but very well insured Democratic leader Chuck Schumer came this week with absurd commentary that it was a huge mistake for Congressional Democrats to undertake healthcare reform in Obama’s first term. In a clearly uncoordinated messaging effort of his own without collaboration with the White House or DNC, he said we should have focused on the economy and not done the Affordable Care Act. Is our Federal Government a one trick pony, incapable of multi-tasking?
I thought all along we were doing both. And I also thought and still think healthcare, or the cost of it is a major drag on the national and well as household economies.
Howard Dean was interviewed extensively this week on his successful 50 state strategy during his tenure as DNC Chair. He was quite blunt as usual on the strategic failure of the DNC during this most recent election cycle. And he too pointed out the complete silence of any messaging strategy on our accomplishments and solutions for the future of our people.
Debbie W.S., are you hearing this? DNC members, are you going to secure for us here in the trenches new leadership ? And I hope an updated, technology supported redux of the Dean era? Are you going to bring him in as a consultant to your replacement for Debbie W.S. and fire the useless consultants who gave us so little in 2014?
Delaware DNC members Bob Gilligan and Karen Valentine, what exactly are you doing to get this party up and running again in preparation for 2016? This includes the local party which is so desperately in need of energy. What say you? Would love to hear from you on this blog.
Tags: Featured
The White House and Congress have failed on coordinated messaging almost from the beginning.
Mostly because Obama doesn’t take the lead. He coalesces then says “ok this is the direction WE need to go.” He isn’t a trailblazer on policy and never has been. Frustrating Ds to no end because Obama is a moving target.
Bob Gillifan recruited John Atkins to run as a Dem, so he has a real form grasp on all of this stuff.
Obama did make a feint toward taking tne lead back when he was talking about income inequality. He caught people’s attention and ws getting good traction. And the $10.10 minimum wage proposal was a good start toward addressing the problem. But it was only a piece of the puzzle, and they couldn’t stick to it even on a rhetorical level. Obama and Dems fell back onto the couch when confronted by an election.
Mr Puck wrote:
Maybe because they realized that a hard left program would win them a whopping 42% of the vote?
You can count on it: except in really no-contest races, the Democratic candidate is guaranteed 40% of the vote, and the Republican candidate is guaranteed 40% of the vote; only the 20% in the middle is close to up for grabs. To win, candidates have to win 51% of the middle, and that’s why you don’t see many of them going for hard left or hard right positions in the general elections.
As for the Democrats talking about income inequality or some of the other things you want to address, you have two problems: first, Barack Obama has been President for the last five years and ten months, and income inequality hasn’t lessened one bit under his Administration. Considering how much y’all complain about him cozying up to corporations, I wouldn’t think that you’d believe his policies were the answer anyway.
Second, the middle is the practical, working class in America, and when you start talking about income inequality, you are saying, whether you believe it or not, that more money needs to be taxed away to redistribute to poorer people. One of the things that you just don’t seem to get is that the Democrats can’t be both the party of working people and the party of non-working people; the more you want to give to people who don’t work, the more you have to take from people who do.
To win, candidates have to win 51% of the middle
That is the flawed argument that Howard Dean laid to rest.
that’s why you don’t see many of them going for hard left or hard right positions
There is no hard left in elective politics. But there is plenty of hard right.
Gotta love how conservatives brag about getting aroundv18% of the total registered voters in an election. This probably constitutes their entire base
Several people I work with who are lower middle income and uneducated said they voted a straight Republican ticket. It was all based on their resentments of minorities, undocumented workers and the black POTUS of course. There has to be 10’s of millions of these folk out there the dems need to figure out how to get to
“Maybe because they realized that a hard left program would win them a whopping 42% of the vote?”
Min. wage was on the ballot in red states….and passed.
Resentment is a good way to put it. Poor whites feel like they are getting passed over by welfare queens, quotas, amnesty, etc.
Where is the message from Ds pointed directly at the poor white voter?
Dana –
That 40-20-40 division of the electorate was already tired two years ago. Leave it to Mitt Romney already. Yes, both parties have their base and yes, there are people who don’t make up their mind until late in the game. But there’s a whole different dimension to that puzzle: turnout.
40-20-40 is like thinking in terms of left and right, without even touching on the fact that you can go forward and backwards. Complicating things, the vote share of those groups isn’t uniform as turnout goes up or down. The proportion of base Dems in a 100% is different than at 60% than at 30%. There’s more than one path to the mountaintop. Time to stop oversimplifying.