If you want a real progressive to run and win in 2016........

[musiclawyer]

Note: The GOP Southern Strategy did not birth itself in a few days or even months.

The left needs formal organization, strategy and recruitment gatherings, starting now. Literally creating a government in waiting ( although the main actors will and should remain anonymous) Not kidding. Unless you want to leave this to chance. No fucking Eric Holders and Larry Summers on the team

There will be a triangulator / DLC annointed special one, with lots of Obama holdovers that will be backed by the media. That's what real progressives should not want.

Assume Citizens United will be around. Soooooo..... You need global fundraising and fearless, truth tellers: Grayson, Weiner, Dean come to mind( Dean will be old by then should have a role to play). It's never too early to start. Someone create the organization, and I will drop coin tomorrow. I think it's that important.

[emulatorloo]

1. GOP Southern Stategy was about using Racism to Elect Republicans

I don't quite get where you are going with this? How are you emulating the Southern Strategy?

[demwing]

5. DUPE, please delete /nt

[demwing]

6. It's not the SPECIFCS of the Southern Strategy that the OP wants to emulate

forget for a moment thet the strategy is racist. It could have been based on any variety of political or social issues.

The point is that the GOP put a plan in the works, then nurtured and developed it over many years. Its that type of long-term planning that the OP is calling for, not a strategy of racism.

[Laelth]

2. It IS that important, and you are very patriotic to make such an offer.

While I am not the person to form such an organization, I would welcome and support it.

-Laelth

[rucky]

3. DFA has a lot of room to grow

and the players you mentioned are already involved in the organization. There's already the infrastructure in place, it just needs more support to grow.

This is the part when someone usually chimes in and points out an imperfection about .

Anyway, if you haven't checked them out recently, I suggest revisiting http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

okay, they haven't taken down their message to Pelosi from yesterday, but...

[leveymg]

4. Soros should do a Koch Bros, but the Left needs to show the ability to dust itself off & mobilize.

[pnorman]

7. "Southern Strategy"? ShouldTHAT be our model?

Righting Reagan’s Wrongs?

Let’s set the record straight on Ronald Reagan’s campaign kickoff in 1980.

Early one morning in the late spring of 1964, Dr. Carolyn Goodman, her husband, Robert, and their 17-year-old son, David, said goodbye to David’s brother, Andrew, who was 20.

They hugged in the family’s apartment on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and Andrew left. He was on his way to the racial hell of Mississippi to join in the effort to encourage local blacks to register and vote.

It was a dangerous mission, and Andrew’s parents were reluctant to let him go. But the family had always believed strongly in equal rights and the benefits of social activism. “I didn’t have the right,” Dr. Goodman would tell me many years later, “to tell him not to go.”
.
.
.
The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”
.
.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html

[bluestate10]

24. Yes. But with a different ethos.

Instead of appealing to the darker side of human nature, we need to appeal to the brighter side, with concrete examples of why what we propose is the best choice for the average american. Southerners, in particular, must be brought around to the reality that their voting patterns are destroying their economies and leaving them behind parts of the country that make more enlightened choices.

The basic concept of the southern strategy can be used, appeal to a basal need of a population. Republicans appealed and are still appealing to the basal need to hate those that are different. Democrats must paint a clear picture of the current situation and the choices that are available for making life better. The democratic message must be taken into living rooms and small groups by well informed, trained true believers. Resistance will be met, but if those people that offer resistance at least leave thinking about whether the choices that we offer are best, we would have won one small battle of the larger fight.

[pnorman]

30. When you say "Southern Strategy", most will take that to mean that which was firs proposed by Nixon.

I believe it was crafted by Pat Buchanan. But it was Reagan who first made it a winning strategy. It meant blatant appeals to Low Information people, mainly in the South, who react in knee-jerk fashion to invocations of: "God", "Guns", and of course, "RACE" (although most of them will vigorously deny the latter)!

Even reversed as with a photographic negative, I still see major problems with that as a "winning strategy" for the`Democrats. I don't feel all that qualified to argue "strategy", but I think that "Southern Strategy" was a poor choice of words!

[unblock]

8. just because some people are obviously missing the point, here are some other examples:

lincoln didn't come out of nowhere and invent the idea of abolishing slavery. the abolitionist movement had its origins in pre-colonial times and clashed with slaveowners repeatedly, leading to many compromises and careful growth of the union so as not to upset the balance of power. eventually the abolitionist movement grew strong enough to election lincoln, who didn't promise any specific action regarding slavery, but who the south was convinced would abolish it. hence the south started seceeding before lincoln was even sworn in.

fdr didn't campaign on a platform to spend massive amounts of money on the poor and unemployed, he didn't campaign on creating vast public works programs. but he did respond to the movement in the public for massive help under dire circumstances.

kennedy/johnson similarly were part of a growing movement to rectify the fact that a century after abolition, we still didn't have anything approaching equality.



presidents can often be thought of as mere symbols or personifications of the real power shifts and movements in the public and power structure at large. they rarely if ever really CREATE big changes in public attitudes; rather, they recognize the shifts that are already happening and give voice and legitimacy to them.

[stray cat]

9. Telling southerners they are idiots, racist and their beliefs are foolish does not encourage

Them to vote democratic

[Kennah]

10. Swap Biden for Grayson or Feingold in the VP slot for 2012

[AlabamaLibrul]

11. The VP can be told how to vote in case of a tie. Swap Obama n/t

[Kennah]

14. No danger

Grayson and Feingold are bigger mensches than Obama.

[pnorman]

15. And that would turn WHICH Purple state Blue????

n/t

[treestar]

12. What difference would it make if Congress did not go along?

and it won't happen. They'll be at the keyboard complaining, but doing anything? No.

[sabrina 1]

17. Congress will go along with a good leader. They are going along

with Obama aren't they? He fights for the things he believes in, sadly they aren't the things we thought he believed in.

Nancy and Harry went along many times, very reluctantly, as she has stated, with unpopular bills because Obama more or less forced them to. Congress was very cooperative with Obama. He even managed to twist the arm of Dennis Kucinich. He got what he wanted. I don't know why people keep trying to say he wanted what we wanted, but couldn't 'get the votes'. He GOT what he wanted. He has been a very successful CEO so far.

Now we need a really good progressive leader in the WH who can do the same thing, only for issues that coincide with the Dem. Party platform and who won't lie to the other side, and pretend he would have done things their way 'if only I had the votes'.

[ima_sinnic]

21. ++++1

yes, exactly.

[xchrom]

28. agreed. nt

[t0dd]

13. How about in 2012 instead? nt

[Golden Raisin]

16. I'd like a "real progressive"

to run in 2012.

[HughBeaumont]

29. Baby steps. 2016 is the smarter strategy.

Primarying Obama will lead to a Republican president, which America can ill-afford. The Republicans they have now would make you WISH for the days of George W. Yes, they're just THAT bad.

Sherrod Brown is the name I'd like to throw in right off for 2016. If he can get elected by a mandate over (for whatever effed-up reason) Mike DeWine in Faux-red, Fascist-friendly Ohio, then I see no reason he couldn't be President of this country. Strong worker values, strong progressive values and best of all, appeals to moderates. Never mind his being arm-twisted in this rotten tax-cut deal; most often he sides with veterans, unions and workers.

Which, of course, means it's a crapshoot whether CorpMerica would allow him to live two years into his term or not. Think I'm being "conspiratorial"? Seen any Republican figures taking bullets or suddenly malfunctioning planes lately?

[bemildred]

18. Congress is what matters most. nt

[mmonk]

19. What about all the other red areas, especially new ones?

We have to be willing to fight for progressive candidates, especially if the Party is moving more into Reaganomics than it already has. That means bucking the top down apparatus.

[robcon]

20. I would be very happy to have Obama's successor to be similar to Obama.

He's one of the best presidents we've had.

[xchrom]

22. unions have the infrastructure to reach out to various leftist interest groups.

which is our big problem -- we're Hydra.

if the unions can reach out to environmentalists, womens right activists, lgbtiq, etc -- bring them in under a economic justice umbrella -- you could probably make this work.

other wise everybody will still go there own way.

[bluestate10]

25. The out reach can't be just to leftists.

Moderates and even thinking conservatives must be engaged aggressively. If a message only to leftists approach is taken, the majority of citizens and voters will be marginalized, that would not bode well for producing desired results.

I clearly see that most on DU would rather not engage even moderates. That to me is abundantly clear from some of the threads. But the reality is that elections can't be won and change can't happen without moderates, and even conservatives on-board. I understand that tempers will flare during the discussion of policy options between moderate, or even conservative democrats and left leaning democrats. The temper flares will come from all sides, as is obvious if one read posts to threads with an open mind. But one feature that all of us have if we are still calling ourselves democrats is that at our core, we have the very same values and vision for the nation, even as we prefer different paths for realizing those values and visions. With the last point fresh in mind, I close this segment by stating that failure of any wing of the democratic party to engage the other wings in constructive dialog will prove to be self defeating for overall democratic party objectives.

As a moderate, when I view positions of the far left and far right, I see positions that come out to essentially, "this is what I want, no other choice is right". Life, politics and societal change are not black and white, those elements always come in varying shades of grey. I see posts that call out Obama because he has not gotten DADT repealed during the first two years of his administration, even as he faced near catastrophic problems in other policy areas. Harry Truman integrating the armed forces during the fifties is often used as the benchmark as to why Obama has failed on DADT. But the Truman example ignores two salient points. First, Truman integrated the armed forces after African American soldiers, air forces and sea forces had been denied basic human rights ever since the first African American fought for american independence from Great Britain. DADT would have been in place since the mid 1990s, Truman integrated the US armed forces after nearly 180 years where loyal patriots serving their nation suffered injustices and often were treated far worse than enemy prisoners. Second, Truman had the power of executive order, he did not need Congress to act to integrate the US armed forces. Obama does not have executive order as a tool, all he has is behind the scenes arm twisting, jaw boning and cajoling of members of Congress.

[xchrom]

27. in contemporary terms -- i believe moderates are the ultimate failure. and corrupt.

HCR is a moderate piece of legislation -- and i find it unacceptable.

moderates have done a yeoman's job demonizing the left along with conservatives.

i'm simply uninterested in moderates.

[quaker bill]

23. Now if you really want this

It is time to suck it up and make this President as successful as possible. Whether true from your perspective or not, the vast majority see President Obama as a step in the direction of progressive policy. If he is broadly seen as a failure in 2016, then the chance of electing a more progressive successor simply vanishes. It will not matter what you do in terms of fundraising and organization, the chance to elect a more progressive adminstration will be lost for a generation. Where you want the people to be is actually liking President Obama and wanting even more and stronger policy in the progressive direction. This will not come from any perception of failure.

[bluestate10]

26. Exactly right, Bill.

The far left often do not seem to realize that in order for the country to get from where it is now to where they prefer it requires that the left and far left suck it up and accept that incremental change is the only rational option. There will be occasional setbacks, but incremental change in a progressive direction will end with the nation being a progressive thinking society. I have no illusions that will happen during my lifetime, but I do know that if the left and extreme left do things their way, that final state of american society would not happen if I had ten lifetimes. The surest way for the left and extreme left not to get one smidgen of what they want in policy is for them to scare the hell out of moderates and conservatives that are not yet ready for some of the ideas the left and far left are proposing, even as I believe, the left and far left are closer to being right on issues such as the environment, weapons and our nation's out reach to the rest of the world.

As a moderate I can accept a good, progressive, decent human being as my President, even if he or she has some political policy flaws in my eyes. My question to left and far left democrats is can you give this good, decent human being, moderate President a chance to do his job and move you to an opportunity to elect a more progressive President in 2016? Or will you act in a way that will give us four to eight years of an unacceptably regressive Presidency? I see a flawed, but given the environment, pretty good President. Will you cover my back now so that I can cover yours in 2016 and beyond?