Watching the teevee and found an interesting story that makes me asks
"Is it the Democratic Brand that is causing Georgia candidates to lose races"?
On Tuesday, a story ran featuring an Iraqi War veteran, Anibal Santiago, "a single dad who went from fighting on the front lines in Iraq to fighting to keep his Grovetown home."
Veteran Santiago is 40 yrs old, severely disabled from brain trauma, and has an outrageously high adjustable mortgage rate. The military is only giving him 80% of his disability; which is truly a shame since he can barely walk or talk.
The next day, Wednesday, the news channel followed up on the story by recounting how hundreds of local Augusta people have called to offer support. They spotlighted one gentleman who said he felt the need to help because "our soldiers should come home and be treated with honor".
Now, the Democrats just ran a candidate in this very same teevee market, James Marlow, who ran on that very same message - that our soldiers should be treated with honor when they return from war. But, the voters in the 10th Congressional District overwhelming voted for Jim Whitehead, a candidate who said "the Iraq War is not a big deal" in the district.
So what's the deal - are Georgia voters turned off by the Democratic brand thus they turn deaf to the messenger?
Comments (23)
yes and it really shouldnt shock anyone, the south already showed theyre willing to shut off an entire party for 100+ years.
IRE, hear ya. But should Democrats just wait until the second coming or the next 100 years?
Or is it time that we, as Georgia Democrats, start to re-brand ourselves? Re-Brand as in telling Georgia Voters what our Party stands for and not re-brand as in giving up on our core values to please voters that will never come to our side.
what IS the GA Dems core values? What we were elected on for 135 years? Sounds core to me.
i dont know, i dont know if ther is an ansewr. if there was an answer, i wouldnt be givign them away for free...
:)
that said, we shouldnt give up a fight, i mean, we can still give repubs shit and have spirited campaigns and candidates,
btw: core values for me at least, are a mix of zell (when gov), nunn, Ffwler, taylor, and russell (without the racism part.)
FWIW, when I hear please voters that will never come to our side, i disagree with that for sooooooooo many reasons. too late now for that.
Here's where the party really needs to step up to the plate. Instead of wasting time at state committee meetings over resolutions about kicking out Zell, or listening to elected officals blather on, we need to be working on the planks in the platform and getting the word out. The committee's need to be functioning soon.
My pet peeve is the War, I hate the Iraq war, everything about it, but it's not the only problem this country has, it's a symptom of arrogance and power run amuck. Where is that message, after being drowned out with "Support the Troops".
Oh and were is all the money comining from to fight this war? On Sept 10th there was no money for health care for kids, for the elderly, none for schools none for the enviroment, now look at us we're drunken sailors on shore leave and we must be printing the stuff in the basement at the DOD..
Jules,
I hate to tell you this, but if you're waiting on having input on what the party platform will be, then you'll be waiting until the cows come home.
It may not be fair and it may not be right, but the DPG's platform is something that is set by the gubernatorial nominee every four years.
In short, much like the Kerry campaign picked the members of the DNC platform committee in 2004, in 2006 the Taylor campaign picked the members of the DPG's platform committee.
Andre, I understand, and you are right..
All I'm saying is what the heck? Why are we sitting around waiting for permission?
Move it or loose it is my mantra. The vaccuum created by this crap is the problem because it allows others who are better organized to define us while we sit around with our thumbs up our collective asses.
Well, according to Prof. Westen, it is most certainly the Democrat's brand image that's the problem. This is from my DC conference notes:
Most important factors in voter's decisions are:
1) Feelings toward parties and their principals.
2) Feelings about candidates.
3) (Distant third) feelings about candidate policies.
4) Facts about candidate policies.
According to Prof. Westen's research, voting is an emotional, not rational decision. That's where esoteric tools like branding and messaging come in. This has little to do with platforms, by-laws and all the rest. It's maddeningly superficial I know, but it's for real.
Hmmm. Haven't read Professor Westen yet, but I have to ask: Where do "Feelings toward parties and their principles" come from if not from platform and message?
Or as I once heard at a pitch meeting: "I don't know if Charmin's price per sheet is higher or not, but I know it feels good on my ass." Do with that you will.
Yes, to some extent messaging relates to platform, but do you remember our platform from 2006? I saved my copy for posterity.
Trying to base effective messaging off that document would have been a challenge. The whole platform was written not to offend Republicans who might be tempted to vote for the Big Guy.
That's OK I guess, but only as long as other messages aren't required to flow from it.
IRE, "Sam Nunn" is not a core value. Neither is "Mark Taylor". Those are candidates. What do those guys stand for, and why can't the Party explicitly state those as values? It should be the same throughout the years. We can still have a party platform for the convention, but it should conform to the overall party principles, not the other way around. As long as we do this backwards, we'll continue to have problems with party switchers.
Equal opportunity.
Equal justice.
Environmental protection.
Safe, strong, healthy, communities.
i know there not values just saying what they stood for is my "core values".
and lets face it, thesse days do we need what the nominee for governor says is the platform to be the ONLY thing we can say for four years? no of course not.
I know you know that, but I think it is (or will be) important to state what those values are. I think the way you said that is very much the way people here in Georgia think. It's strictly about the candidate and the values can change from one campaign to the next.
Candidates pick a party to be associated with because they identify with the values of that party more than the other, but the values of Georgia Dems are vague and subject to change, and therefore the connection between the Party and it's candidates is very tenuous, and the same goes for voters.
I don't think they are vague at all...
what we confuse for vague is an inability to affect the legislature...
sorry but i think a lot of our older politicians represent a different and no longer valid value system.
Some pieces of it, sure, definitely. But as a whole, no way. Unless you think segregation is a core value. The fact that the convention last year nearly came to a halt over having a segregationist be honored is a good example of the party having "value" troubles. We're valuing the right people for the wrong reasons and the wrong people for the right reasons.
A much longer dialogue needed on this i think.
the party underwent a partial revolution from 1968-1972 and it was never really completed in some respects. This discussion and the fact that we're having it 40 years after the party changed is evidence of conversations conveniently avoided.
What Jerry and Tim said...
uh...i dont think the party was honoring racism at all.
i think the fact lester maddox wouldnt be a democrat anymore says we no longer have the same values.
What exactly would Maddox be? I hardly think the Republicans would claim him either..He's the past, that I think was Tim's point.
It's time to define ourselves in 2007 with or without candidates. I'm a Democrat, I'm not running for office, so I don't have a position of values.. Hell yes I do.
Can you tell I'm sick of candidate only culture. herumph yeah I am. Cause their are lots of Dems I wouldn't want someone claiming I'm one of them.
The GOP had no trouble defining their brand, per 2004, without being in the majority in GA, I don't get why we can't either.
Should be easier, really. We don't have to govern. I say we roll out ideas and plans that a majority of people like but we know Republicans cannot act upon (because of lack of political will, or comprised legislators, or angry donors or whatever).
Okay, not easy, but doable.
The divide between national Democrats and Georgia Democrats probably doesn't help much as far as branding goes. Although someone like me would like to see us move closer towards the national party particularly on certain "hot button" (forgive the pun) social issues, I'm probably not in the majority on that.
I've always loved the "big tent" description and thought that was something to be proud of. I still do, but it sometimes gets awfully hard for some of us to live together under that proverbial tent. The same folks always seem to be the ones making the sacrifices on those issues. I understand why and even participated in that a bit last year. But it gets old. Very old, especially when we're losing the big ones.
And my feeling is that the Party does not need to dictate policy positions, just a set of values that we strive for.
Take "equal opportunity" for example. Different Democratic candidates will be better or worse advocates, but at least we have a measurement by which to consider them.
By the same token, we also have a way to distinguish ourselves from Republicans. Democrats BETTER be more about "equal opportunity" than Republicans; Repubs are all about everybody for themselves and protecting big business, etc. We are the ones looking out for the regular people.
We should, and can, choose values that distinguish us from those we oppose. Conservatives want smaller government and less taxes, well we need to tell people what that means; less services and "pay to play" access to your government. We prefer equal justice and equal opportunity for all.
Donkeys and Elephants...
It's a choice, a simple one. Which animal.
All things being equal, I chose the Donkey...
Why?
Because some animals are more equal than others :-)