Starting around 1988, Bill Clinton positioned himself almost perfectly as a "New" Democrat, giving voters that were unhappy with the Republican Party but unwilling to vote Democrat a third option -- all the things voters liked about the Democrats and none of the things they didn't. Much of his campaign focused on issues like welfare reform and though people forget this fact, his selection of Al Gore as his #2 reinforced a forward looking theme that if elected he would reinvent government by embracing new technology and making it relevant for middle class Americans of the 1990's.
Interestingly enough, Ross Perot also positioned himself to take advantage of an underserved segment of the population, the America first anti-globalist anti-taxers. Together with Clinton, they delivered a death blow to incumbent President George HW Bush.
Leading up to 2000, candidate George W Bush did a similar thing. He analyzed the political landscape, figured out what voters did (tax cuts, isolationism) like about Republicans and what they didn't (mean spirited, obsessed with impeachment) like, and packaged himself as a Clinton style "new" Republican -- compassionate conservatism was the centerpiece.
As the next Presidential election approaches, I'd be curious to see what commenters think the current "opening" in American politics is. If you were a Democrat running for President or a strategist advising one, what moves would you start making now to capture an unrepresented segment of the population and convert them (even if only temporarily) into Democratic voters? I have my own idea about where such openings exist, but I'd like see what others think.
Keep in mind that according to a new DCorps poll, more than 55% of the electorate thinks the country is heading in the wrong direction, yet while only 43% of voters have positive feelings towards the Republicans, a mere 38% feel positively towards Democrats. How would you capitalize on those numbers?
Democrats just don't get many votes from homeowners. There are a number of theories and reasons why and if you're interested you can read plenty about the causes elsewhere. But in light of the Supreme Court ruling today (unfortunately penned by the court's liberal members + Justice Kennedy) that paves the way (literally) for local governments to use eminent domain to condemn private property under a very tenuous definition of public use (if new development will yield higher tax revenue), the issue goose has just laid a golden egg in the laps of Democrats, if they'll run with it.
Property rights in much of this country are under attack from two sources -- the government, in the form of eminent domain and a renewed push for government secrecy on all levels and on all subjects since 9/11, and from quasi-governmental homeowners associations. The less desirable your property, the more the threat to your liberty comes from the government, the more desirable your property, the more likely it is that you are under the tyranny of some homeowner's association.
Democrats in Georgia should push for 3 constitutional amendments: A first one that prevents local governments from secretly negotiating with developers. Local governments argue that they can't be competitive with competing jurisdictions if they must disclose their negotations -- which is b.s. and code for "we wouldn't be able to locate this landfill next to this subdivision if the subdivision knew about it." Lt. Gov Mark Taylor and Democratic leaders in the legislature are already pushing for something exactly like this.
Next, push for a constitutional amendment that clearly defines what can and can't be done in the name of eminent domain. Utility right of way is acceptable, as is condemning property that is unlivable, or when a property owner's neglect is harmful to the community or to the tenants of the property. Swapping what's on the land for a new development because it will lead to higher tax revenues is not the job of government. If the market determines that there is a better use for someone's land than it's current use, then let the current owner be compensated accordingly. If tax revenues will increase by such a large amount that the local government wants to get involved, then the local government can kick in extra money to the current landowners to sweeten the deal. That should be the extent of government's involvement -- not interfering with the market to please a wealthy developer.
Finally, a constitutional amendment to define and reign in homeowner's associations. Most HOA's operate within the bounds of decency, but when one gets out of control it can ruin the lives of those that it stands in the way of. Historically, taxation issues have driven homeowners into the arms of the Republicans, but ultimately these homeowners have gotten litte out of the deal (except marginally lower taxes in some cases). As long as they don't feel Democrats offer them anything else that's worth a damn, they'll stick with the Republicans, even if the benefits are microscopic. A pro-property owner agenda that the Republicans will be against will go a long way towards reversing the terrible tide in the suburbs that turned Georgia red.
This is a tragic story, though I believe the DA's in question made the correct decision not to prosecute. It seems to me that car manufacturers could voluntarily (or be forced to) add some sort of mechanism that can detect motion, sound, or perhaps a combination of the two inside a car, and then roll down or crack a window, even if the car is off. I don't think a politician can make a career out of niche causes like this but that certainly doesn't mean that Congress shouldn't be searching for new ways to use advanced technology to make the lives of Americans better and in some cases save lives.
On Tuesday Sandy Springs makes it official -- it will become a city and you have to be seriously deluding yourself if you think otherwise. And pro-city activists have to be seriously deluding themselves if they don't think the first thing the city does is raise taxes.
One of the second or third things the city does could be to elect a Democratic mayor, or at least a moderate more in the mold of a Democrat than the type of Republicans who generally win primaries in this state. Kerry got about 42% in what will be the new city, and it's only getting more Democratic by the day.
In fact, one of the best things Republicans have going for them in North Fulton County is the economics of Atlanta/South Fulton hate. As soon as you close off a city from the rest of the county and all of the tax revenue stays local, the appeal of voting for a Republican to counterbalance the Democratic leadership from the rest of the county diminishes greatly. Does it account for 8% of the vote? I guess we'll soon find out.
In case you've only seen the flury of commentary about what Dean said, I thought I'd reproduce the quote:
"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people," Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the type of people we are. But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities."
The comments are another example of why the former Vermont governor, who remains popular with the party's grassroots, has been a lightning rod for criticism since being elected to head the Democratic National Committee last February. His comments last week that Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," which he later clarified to say Republican "leaders," were disavowed by leading Democrats including Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
I think a lot of people have misinterpreted the outrage over this set of comments. The media/Republicans/many Democrats aren't outraged over these comments because they wrongly believe them to be false, after all it is true (as quick blogger studies have shown) that 99% of Republican elected officials are white and probably more than 80% are Christian and everybody, including the outraged, know it.
No, the problem with the comments isn't just your standard Chomsky-ite speaking of truth to power, it's that the context with which Dean speaks makes it sound like there is something wrong with being white and Christian. Furthermore, that and comments like saying that Republicans have never made an honest living in their lives reinforces to whites, Christians and entrepreneurs/small businessmen that the Democratic Party just doesn't get them, is hostile to their way of living, thinking and making a living, and that they should just stick with the Republican Party.
To paraphrase that famous guideline, it's the context, stupid. It's ok for a minority politician to make a point (usually to a minority crowd) about the lack of diversity of the other party. It's ok for Jim Wallis to make a point about the inconsistencies in religious teachings and the campaign and governing practices of Republican politicians (it's also ok to quote the bible, but not ok to lazily paraphrase it). It's not ok to bash Republicans for 15 minutes and then follow it up by adding that they're basically the [insert group*] party. Dean's legions of supporters urge the Democratic Party to put a positive message and agenda forward, I suggest Dean take their advice.
* - white, Christian, military, soldier, rural, pro-life, etc
Here's something interesting to ponder. How have Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and Kansas, all states that Bush won by more than 10% elected Democratic governors, while every state except Illinios that Kerry won by more than 10% (California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island and even Vermont) have had trouble -- all currently have Republican incumbents (expect New York to flip soon, but possibly at the cost of Illinois flipping back to R).
Could it be that Democrats are having trouble winning states where the red/blue-rural/urban divide can replicate itself statewide as it appears on the national stage? In other words, Democrats have a big problem -- we can win where things are homogeneous (probably explains why so many local elected officials continue to be Democrats) even if that homogeny is Montana, but can't (or only barely do) where it's not, even when the not is Washington with it's Seattle/not Seattle divide (where Kerry won easily but Gregoire only did yesterday) or Georgia with it's Atlanta/not Atlanta split.
To me, it's something very interesting to think about. And it may also mean that the conventional wisdom for Democrats -- turn to a red stater -- isn't in actuality that relevant. What might be far more important is to find a nominee from a diverse state (either by race or by regional differences) regardless of whether that state is generally Republican or Democratic.
In that context, surely Hillary Clinton's success and experience appealing to traditionally Republican upstate New York voters (where being aligned with urban politics is a liability) is worth more than Evan Bayh's ability to win in a state where, though Republican, everyone more or less agrees with each other. Something to think about.
WalMart same store sales were up only 2.5%. Meanwhile, Target saw an increase of 5.1%. WalMart's executives believe it is because they don't have enough goods targeted to high end consumers, such as organic groceries. I believe it is because I personally (and I assume many others) hate setting foot in a WalMart store (politics aside) because it's like stepping into total disarray. The inside of the stores look like a bad high school cafeteria with uninviting lighting. Things aren't arranged that well, and this may be snobby of me, but there is just a lot of junk everywhere. I don't enjoy shopping there.
On the other hand, the problems that I have with WalMart are probably key elements that allow them to keep prices low and turn a profit. If they cleaned up their stores and made them look nicer, they may not be able to afford their current business model. I doubt some well to do person is going to decide to shop at WalMart because they have a few organic vegetables if the visual experience of shopping there doesn't improve. This may be what ultimately puts the brakes on WalMart's explosive growth.