I think it's pretty odd that they think of issues like universal health care as the ones likely to resonate with Perotistas. But it's not like *I* have the money to do the polling.

So how does the Carville/Greenberg battle plan mesh with this? (PDF warning)

Kamarck and Galston believe that even more lethal than these patterns of voting behavior are patterns of Democratic thinking — called myths by the author. There are four of them.

The "myth of mobilization" clings to the idea that Democrats can win if they just energize their base enough to bring them out in record numbers. Moveon.org and Deaniacs were recent manifestations; we've seen why this is a myth — there are more conservatives than liberals.

Well, going after the Perotistas makes sense if you agree with this. I think that what the authors missed is that we belive there are more liberal-leaning independents and that by bringing them out we can beat the conservatives. So the paperts are in total agreement here.

The "myth of demography" argues the country will become more Democratic as it becomes more female and Hispanic; the only problem is that Democrats have suffered their greatest erosion among married women and Catholics.

Remeber who the Perotistas were? I have a strong memory that these were politically-new or normally non-political men who were sick & pissed off at the way things were and to wanted shake up Washington. They were the forerunner of the Angry White Men which Gingrich tapped to take the House in 1994. Not disagreement, but trather a whole different demogrpahic is being discussed.

The "myth of prescription drugs" hopes — and little more — that Democrats can win by avoiding social issues and national security, pushing only the "mommy issues" — health care, education and job security.

Total agreement in the two papers here. Both argue that domestic 'well-fare' issues, which are both derogitorially labeled 'mommy' issues, aren't enough to pull the full weight of independent voters. (Since welfare is a euphemism for entitlements, I think you know why I phrased it this way.)

The "myth of language" is my personal favorite. It holds that all the Democrats need to do is repackage their positions in alpha-male language and use more God-talk.

I think this where the papers diverge - Carville/Greenberg doesn't even talk about religious and strong argumentative framing, where the POP paper is especially critical of changes in Democratic language without change in policy goals. They mesh well together though.

I think it's pretty odd that they think of issues like universal health care as the ones likely to resonate with Perotistas. But it's not like *I* have the money to do the polling.

Since we had Harry and Louise in 1994, we've seen personal and employer health care costs skyrocket over the last 13 years. Maybe "the Mad As hell" set of Perotistas are now ready to settle down with single-payer? Or maybe it's got something to do with this?

This time, instead of trying to derail a national health-reform plan, [Harry and Louise] are promoting health insurance coverage for the more than 44 million uninsured Americans. Not only are the actors the same in these commercials, so is the group that's bankrolling the campaign - the Health Insurance Association of America.

Spokesman Richard Coorsh says HIAA has always been for universal health coverage; it was just Clinton's ideas that the industry did not like.

Since we had Harry and Louise in 1994, we've seen personal and employer health care costs skyrocket over the last 13 years.

Holy Rip Van Winkle, Batman! I can't believe I missed 2006!

Who said I could count?

There's a reason I don't beat up on Muckdog when he goes economic. I'm grossly unqualified.

I'm grossly unqualified.

You should run for Preznit.

As a current member of the Reform Party, I will be looking at this proposal with a great deal of interest.

The time is finally right for an universal health care program. That alone would bring millions of voters to the Democratic party.

Stan Greenberg's book (the two America's) was interesting! He makes the case that whichever party can shore up support in the middle - in a real, significant, long-lasting and meaningful way - along with retaining solid support from their base can win - not only the White House, but both houses of Congress, too - for the next fifty years. I think that Kerry was using that strategy - playing to the middle - during the last prez election. He almost won, too.

But then there's the other school of thought that every election is a referendum (up or down) of those in power. Dems will benefit big-time from the failure of the Bush administration. Right now, the polls show the country thinks that the rethugs are taking the country in the wrong direction. Duh! Only one year too late, sadly.

Could this be a winning strategy? Sure, it's a possibility. I don't mind "playing to the middle" as long as it's not "moving to the right". Democrats should return to their values of looking out for the little guy - if that can be framed in a "reform" platform to appeal to a wider range of voters - all the better!!

Universal health care! Timetable for withdrawal from Iraq! Ramp up the tax rates! Presidential Medal of Honor for Mother Sheehan! Support the UN! Yes! We can win! GoreDeanEdwardsClarkObama! Kick Lieberman out of the party! Victory '08!

Former Perot supporters have been cheated out of healthcare plans that they took for granted back then too. We're losing jobs because of the costs of providing healthcare. Supporting national healthcare is a winner for the Democrats politically and for America economically. As for me, I will not support any candidate who will not call for single payer.

It is my litmus test.

He makes the case that whichever party can shore up support in the middle...Posted by portia
That is why the Republicans run like Democrats at election time, only they govern from the extreme right. Unfortunately for us, the American media conglomerates are complicit in making them seem to be moderate. Yes, Kerry tried to be a moderate. The Democratic Convention was designed to appeal to moderates. But look what happened: The Republicans put on as nasty a convention as I have ever seen and not one media outlet held them accountable
Possibly, if we use corruption, cronyism, and incompetence as issues and if they resonate with voters, we can overcome their huge advantage. Once in office, the Fairness Doctrine can be placed in effect and perhaps some of these hideous media monopolies can be broken.
Other good issues are the deficit, out sourcing, and off-shoring. Promoting legal as opposed to hiring illegal immigrants would appeal to the old Perot crowd. Hispanic voters favor that policy as well.

Rip, ditto.

Promoting legal as opposed to hiring illegal immigrants would appeal to the old Perot crowd. Hispanic voters favor that policy as well.

Mike,

I recently saw a poll on Lou Dobbs that showed that hispanic voters are also becoming concerned with the problems on the border. Considering the need for hispanic votes, especally among western Democrats, if hispanic support for immigration reform solidifies it will free the Democrats to shortstop an issue that the hard right is likely to demogogue in the near future.

judith,

Thanks.