First off, I listened to Ann Coulter and Al Sharpton last night, and went to a pretty small reception. I am a conservative, and actually took a picture of me and Coulter.. but I think I best not post it on here lol... But anyways, I'm listening to Howard Dean tonight and going to a small gathering with him afterwards. I'll probably get to talk to him some... anyone have any good ideas of things to ask him.. if I get the chance?
Ask him how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. After all, the man is from Vermont...he ought to have an answer to that one.
Tell him you're a conservative voter and he's got two minutes to convince you to vote for a Democrat and see what he says. Dean's strategy as DNC chair is to simplify the party's message, to boil it down to its core values, so that it will be as easily understood as the GOP's. See how his version of that plays with you and report back to let us know what he said and what you thought of it.
batman jones.. that is a good one. I figured, if i was taking pictures with Ann Coulter last night.. it's only fair that I go to see Dean as well. Coulter actually I thought made some good points regarding the democratic party and if the message you are putting out isn't working.. may need to try something else as well... instead of claiming you were just unable to get your message out. Sharpton spent a lot of time last night talking about Bush changing the subject etc.. so they weren't talking about real issues during election... it's the DNC chairman's job I think to make sure they talk about the issues he wants to talk about so some changes in the way you do things might be needed.
i think this is an excellent point- ask him, was the problem in 2004 the messenger, the delivery, or the message itself? if he answers either of the first two it'll be a good indication that he lacks the self-awareness the democrats will need if they ever hope to reclaim some of the voters they've lost.
It isn't surprising that a GOP votere would think that. But it is also unobjective, and has room for disagreement. Because one side loses doesn't mean they should abandon their message. When Clinton was winning his second term did the GOP start adopting the messages of the Democratic party? Of course not, but after Dole got beat people could have said if the GOP doesn't change their message it shows they lack the self awareness to ever win the whitehouse back. The GOP squeaked by in the last two elections. The Democrats may be justified if they feel they shouldn't overhaul the whole message.
franchise.. I think her point was something along the lines of. is the majoirty of america doesn't support gay marriage for instance.. . .. do you change the message at least slightly so you have a chance to win election? or the same for abortion... If you think losing the election had to do wtih christian voters etc. 4 years later.. no matter who is running. I dont think those voters are going to switch to supporting abortion etc.. the complaint of sharpton was that this turned into a "morals" election.. those voters will have the same morals in 4 years mostly
I would ask him what the Democratic Party position is if China invades Taiwan, whether we should reinforce the 7th Fleet, and it's position on Tibet. A far better question would be Batman's, however. Dean should have a succinct answer. Keep D&D Civil!!
Rocket Fan: What use is politics if it doesn't reflect our values as Americans? basso's question is horserace, strategy stuff. Worse, his question is nothing more than a self-satisfied trap. No matter what Dean answers to his question, he gets to smirk and say 'I told you so.' If Dean doesn't agree that the Dem's core principles are fundamentally flawed, he's out of touch. If he does, even better. You've said you were going to listen to Dean in fairness to see what he has to say, so do that. basso and Coulter suggest that the results of Kerry-Bush signify that the message itself is a loser, leaving out the fact that presidential races (especially close ones) turn at least as much on personality, character, likeability, believability and the ability to deliver a clear message in a short time as the issues, the values or the message itself. And, of course, Kerry is hardly the master when it comes to clarity of message. It's convenient for the GOP and their agents to indict the party's core principles after winning a close race, but it's bogus. Bush's approval rating is currently under 50%. His approval on SS is considerably lower. And most Americans now believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Does that prove the GOP needs to fundamentally change their message? Bush would tell you he hasn't done a good enough job of explaining his position on SS, but apparently the messenger/message theory doesn't work in reverse. He would also tell you that he was elected to do the right thing in Iraq, regardless of polls. Are the polls proof that he's wrong? No, not any more than the previous polls were proof that he was right. And the election results are an indication of many things, but no simple, clear rejection of a party's ideology can be divined from them, particularly when, even while more Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals, more Americans self-identify as D's than R's. This is complex stuff. basso's (and Coulter's) thesis is a perfect example of oversimplified spin. You said you're going to hear Dean to be fair so do that. Ask him why you should give the Dem's another look. If he doesn't make you think twice, fine. But at least give him a listen.
batman .. I'll listen to what he has to say. My point on the other thing was for instance.. If the election was lost because of christian voters.. no matter who the candidate is.. is the message is in support of abortion for instance than they are not going to get those christian voters to vote democrat.. I don't think changing the candidate will win them the "moral" voters as some call them. Whether or not it's worth changing the message to get those voters is up to the party, but I don't think its possible to get the majority of christian voters if the party has a message that allows for abortion etc..
At one time the majority of Americans opposed equal rights for women and minorities. Were the politicians who softened their support for civil rights for the purpose of political expediency right to do that? Or do we owe more to the ones who spent the time and political capital to explain the importance of equal rights for all people? You make a good point on abortion. The GOP did not change their stance when the pro-life position was exceedingly unpopular -- they worked hard on selling their message and changing the minds of American voters. That's working and Bush has been a big part of that. He didn't say, well, most Americans are pro-choice so I will be too. He said he would use the bully pulpit to explain his values to Americans and that he hoped that would result in people rethinking the issue. Popular opinion on gay rights (including marriage) is extremely changeable. Support for equal rights for gays is overwhelmingly higher among young people than among the old, so this will eventually shift just as rights for women, blacks and other minorities did. It's also significant that Dean's position (and the D party's position) on gay marriage is identical to Dick Cheney's, so we have another good example here of a failure to communicate rather than a fundamentally flawed principle. Specifically on the two issues you mentioned here, the electorate is very nearly divided and popular opinion on both issues is changeable. But rather than ask Dean what to do about those two issues, pan back and ask him to convince you that the core values of the Democrats are closer to yours than the core values of the Republicans.
In other words.. People said the christian voters were the difference this year. I don't think it's possible to switch that group from republican or democrat without a change in the actual message. Not saying they necessary should change the message. if that is what they stand for. Just saying I don't think the candidate can get those voters to change their views if using a pro abortion and gay marriage stance.
I should probably take out the gay marriage part of my argument. I think that opinion you may have some luck with. Even if they don't support it, I could see having some people decide the government shouldn't control it. The abortion thing though.. I don't see being able to change the opinion of most that are against it. Personally, that is a big issue for me for instance.
Ok that is fair enough. But when Clinton won his elections did the GOP have to adopt a pro-choice stance in order to win again? I think the election comes down to more than message. The GOP managed to get out enough voters that saw things there way. If the Democras had delivered their message in a way that had gotten more voters out they would have won. That could have been done without having to change. It worked for the GOP last time. They didn't adopt the democratic position on abortion, but they did deliver a message and got enough people out to support them that they won. It is isn't always about changing the message. That is especially true in close elections.
And yes. I won't ask him about those issues.. I'm going mainly to see what he has to say about the core issues etc. The topic of this talk is visions of america. He is supposed to speak on his visions of america. He has been given a stage with the very specified topic of his visions of america.. seems to me like a PERFECT opportunity for him to say exactly what the parties visions are.
Cool that you're going in with an open mind. I agree with you that there are voters for whom abortion is the most important issue and for whom that issue will decide their vote. There are voters like that on both sides. Right now, there are about 30-something percent that favor abortion in most cases and virtually the same percent that oppose it in most cases. Under 20% favor keeping abortion legal in all cases and under 20% favor banning it in all cases. But most Americans recognize it as a complicated issue in which neither side is entirely right. I am conflicted about this issue myself. What Democrats need to do (and what Dean is attempting to do) is to explain that neither party has a monopoly on values. Democrats have very strong values which, like the GOP's, largely find their roots in religious principles. Democrats stand for fairness, equality, helping those who are less fortunate, protecting the earth and its resources over profit, etc. But in recent years, they have virtually ceded "values" to the religious right. I'll assume for a moment (and it doesn't matter if it's true or not) that you're not only conservative but religious and suggest an amendment to the Dean question. Tell him that you're a religious conservative that votes Republican because of your core values and ask him why you should believe the core values of the Democratic party are a closer match with yours. And, again, please report back to let us know if his answer is persuasive.
