Krugman to Bush: No Surrender.
First of, read the story linked above. Now for some thoughts on the subject:
While it's too early to decide which way the Democrats should go, at this early juncture it seems that the best way might be to duplicate the winning Republican strategy of appealing to the base. Problems? Of course. A lot of Democrats simply aren't that liberal. But look, a lot of Republicans aren't that conservative. Socially or fiscally. Still, the Republican base voted. And as much as I liked seeing Kerry appealing to swing voters, perhaps Dems need to make sure that their base is still there. After all, with his decisions, Bush should be doing nothing but creating more democrats every day.
Now, do we say: hey, we've got ALMOST what we needed, now we just need Ohio, therefore, what do voters in Ohio want to hear? Why are Ohioans (if that's their real name) don't vote for Democrats in larger numbers?
It's the question of Tactics vs. Strategy. Is Victory in sight, or do we need to go back to the drawing board and find a new message? Or perhaps, once we find a message that works in Ohio, we'll have a message for Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana and everywhere else? Do Dems need to work on getting larger margins of victory in the cities, or may be, just may be, they need to work harder on rural areas? And does 'working harder' mean explaining what the Democratic message is, or is it clarifying the message, or is it changing the message?
As far as whether Democrats should roll over and let Bush go midieval on America... that's for another post.
Any answers?
While it's too early to decide which way the Democrats should go, at this early juncture it seems that the best way might be to duplicate the winning Republican strategy of appealing to the base. Problems? Of course. A lot of Democrats simply aren't that liberal. But look, a lot of Republicans aren't that conservative. Socially or fiscally. Still, the Republican base voted. And as much as I liked seeing Kerry appealing to swing voters, perhaps Dems need to make sure that their base is still there. After all, with his decisions, Bush should be doing nothing but creating more democrats every day.
Now, do we say: hey, we've got ALMOST what we needed, now we just need Ohio, therefore, what do voters in Ohio want to hear? Why are Ohioans (if that's their real name) don't vote for Democrats in larger numbers?
It's the question of Tactics vs. Strategy. Is Victory in sight, or do we need to go back to the drawing board and find a new message? Or perhaps, once we find a message that works in Ohio, we'll have a message for Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana and everywhere else? Do Dems need to work on getting larger margins of victory in the cities, or may be, just may be, they need to work harder on rural areas? And does 'working harder' mean explaining what the Democratic message is, or is it clarifying the message, or is it changing the message?
As far as whether Democrats should roll over and let Bush go midieval on America... that's for another post.
Any answers?