Geez!! ... (4.00 / 1)

You just ruined someone's talking point!!    ;-)

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:23:00 PM CDT

You're making one unwarranted assumption (4.00 / 1)

Just because Obama stands to gain more from self-identified Democrats doesn't mean that he gains more by adopting a more partisan approach.

To put it differently, isn't it possible that some of the increase in Democratic registration has come from people who prefer less overt partisanship?

---

by: ThomasPaine @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:34:58 PM CDT

Or similarly, (0.00 / 0)

Republicans who still think the same things they used to, but are now embarrassed/disgusted to be identified with their party, and call themselves Independents.

I'm not sure that partisan ID can be used reliably as a metric to measure the ideological climate (please, prove me wrong - I would love to be wrong about this). However, I am pretty sure that it is a very good measure of an enthusiasm gap.  

---

by: nvalvo @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 23:02:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well yeah, but (4.00 / 3)

Aren't at least some of those 3.5% new Dems people who formerly identified as Indies but were Dem-leaning Indies now willing to identify with the Party?  And isn't the drop in GOP registration or identification people who now identify as Indies, making Indies now slightly more conservative?  So yes, obviously, most of Obama's support will come from Dems, but much of the growth in Dems comes from people who were sympathetic but identified themselves as Indies.  Much of the new Dem identification also, of course, comes from people who were too young to vote in 2004, and they are registering and identifying overwhelmingly as Dems.  They obviously account for much, but not all, of the growth.

All of which is not to deny your underlying premise that we have a brand that the public undeniably likes more than the other one and we should stress core Dem issues like the economy, education and smart consumer-friendly regulation, plus ending the war in Iraq, global climate change and reforming health care, all of them Obama priorities.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:38:59 PM CDT

That's what I've read (4.00 / 1)

Indies are more Repub leaning now, because a lot of them are former Repubs who are disillusioned with the Repub Party and ashamed to be identified with it. And a lot of formerly Dem-leaning independents have now moved into the Dem column because they're proud to be Democrats now, and don't mind identifying themselves as Democrats.

---

by: Bush Bites @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:46:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Perhaps there are too many assumptions here... (0.00 / 0)

It's really too easy to make assumptions about Indies. I would love to see some deep polling of contemporary Indies, because in the Western states, it wasn't all that long ago when roughly half of them were so because they thought the GOP was too liberal. I'm talking 90's here. While I'm quite sure many of them went to the GOP during Dubya's ascension and just prior, there's still some out there who are those hard-core 'libertarians' (of the Ron Paul/neo-nazi/Randian  variety, which is to say pretty damn scary).

I would be reticent to make direct correlations between a drop in GOP reg, increases in Indie and Dem reg and start making assumptions about what that really means, without some hard data.

Personally, I don't enjoy the all too common opinion that new Dems regs that aren't young "new voters" are somehow anti-partisan. If that were the case, they would be Indies, not Dems. No, new Dems are there because they have an axe of some sort to grind with the GOP, no? Never underestimate the ferocity of new converts, eh?

Historically, Indies are very difficult to motivate in general elections. The reasons are too obvious to get into here. Party "brand", while a reasonably offensive terminology (because we're talking about the fate of the nation here, not a new toothpaste), is a part of any realignment year. FDR's people knew that much, eh?

So while I sympathize with this notion of "post-party", "post-ideology" and apparently "post-irony" politics, none of this will serve any progressive (or any alternative ideology) agenda. The whole point of using this language is to rhetorically disarm dissent by denying the validity of any dissent at all through sterilized language.

Some in this thread are of the opinion that being overly "partisan" is bad. This amounts to little more than accepting the media narrative, never mind that it's all just "concern trolling" on the media's part. Of course, the next step is to eviscerate ideology as well. Because while partisanship and ideology were perfectly acceptable to the media while the GOP was riding it's own wave of polarization, somehow all that's wrong now that the GOP is on the wane.

If we have a "brand" the public likes more than Brand X, we should be touting that, no? That's what partisan behavior is. It says, "We're on your side, not theirs and here's how."

The Dem leadership is positively infamous for finessing this discussion into electoral failure, time and again.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 23:40:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Partisanship can hurt (4.00 / 3)

I disagree that running a highly partisan campaign is good for the progressive movement. Think long-term. The long-term success of the progressive movement, I would argue, rests on progressivism being seen as a less partisan movement than conservatism.

I'll float a pure hypothetical to show why. Let's suppose that Obama decides to add a new plank to his platform: that of giving third parties more access to power. He could argue that third parties face (nearly) draconian laws limiting their ability to gain mass appeal. And, that they should be given much easier access to debates and polling stations. In effect, he could restate the argument most of us have heard that the two-party duopoly is detrimental to American democracy. Most of us here would probably agree with the sentiment, and so would a whole ton of Independents and Republicans.

But here's the kicker: it would not only be better for our democracy, but it would (likely) be better for the Progressive movement. Would it not? It would give more outlets for the latent progressive/liberal feelings that so many Americans feel, while dropping the baggage of the Democratic party.

That stance sure as hell ain't partisan. But it'd be better overall. Funny too, it'd probably gain him a good large chunk of votes that aren't of the partisan type.

/Pipe dream over

---

by: Risiko @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:52:46 PM CDT

Typo (4.00 / 1)

it can be said with real certainty that Obama will improve on Kerry's vote totals more from self-identified Independents than from self-identified Democrats

Don't think that's what you meant.

On a more substantial note, I'm not sure I agree that non-partisanship is the way to keep all these new (and therefore less secure) Democrats. Destroying the Republican brand works best, and this is best achieved by creating a much stronger Democratic brand. So forthright statements, accepting the legitimacy of dissent but refusing to cower to it, are the way to go.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:55:48 PM CDT

Jay Leno once said (0.00 / 0)

that he would think about being a Republican and then the Republican party would do something very selfish and he would decide that he cannot be a Republican.    Then he would decide to be a Democrat and then the Democratic party would do something really stupid and he would decide that he cannot be a Democrat.  

Let's not do anything stupid.    

For example - - As a liberal I would like to see gay marriage made legal in all states.   However, that would be considered "something stupid" by many people.   Let's not do that now.  

I don't like Obama's positions on the FISA bill or faith based initiatives, but I am willing to cut him some slack.  

First of all - We HAVE to win.        

---

by: richgreer @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 16:57:16 PM CDT

Obama's Position on FISA Is The Very DEFINITION of "Something Stupid" (4.00 / 5)

Up until now, the GOP is the party of lawlessness, and we're the party of law.  If trashing that distinction isn't "something stupid," then I'm afraid that phrase has no meaning.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 18:07:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's like Aasif Mandvi's line about Ken Blackwell: (4.00 / 2)

Jon Stewart: Isn't that an example of conflict of interest?
Aasif Mandvi: No, John. It's the definition of conflict of interest.  

---

by: nvalvo @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 23:04:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What sort of Democrats? (4.00 / 1)

Not all self-identifying Democrats are to the left of Obama. Some new Democrats created by Obama-mania will be to the right of Obama.  Do you think that the majority of those new Dems are to the left or to the right of Obama?

I think that moves to the center are really meant to appeal to moderate-to-conservative Democrats, not independents.  Or at least should be.  As such, any such attempts, if wise (a point I am not necessarily conceding), should not include movement on the core economic issues that bind the Democratic coalition but should lean toward areas such as Obama's recent talk about faith-based initiatives.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 18:39:48 PM CDT

And they should not include (4.00 / 1)

letting the most unpopular president in history spy on everybody and letting the phone company off the hook for breaking the law. That's just stupid. Seriously, tell me where the constituency for crazy retarded corrupt shit like that is. Whoever it is, I guarantee you it's not "the center" or "swing voters."

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 22:20:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You need a conveyor belt (4.00 / 1)

One may sometimes have to move to the centre to keep new recruits onside, but one also has to have a long-term strategy to make them reliable voters. That's the danger of this move to the centre - that you'll minimise the differences and therefore minimise the incentive to remain within the Dmocratic Party.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:38:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]