An early look suggests Democrats lost it in the suburbs and what to do nationally.

The New Republic Online: No Fault -- WHY THERE'S NOTHING THE DEMOCRATS COULD HAVE DONE.

An interesting and apparently accurate analysis that shows Democrats lost the elections in the suburbs and among independents, not in cities and in their progressive base. We liberals and progressives didn't like the campaign but we voted pretty much as previously. There was very little alternative.

I am coming to the conclusion that Bush himself and the media are the major two Democratic weaknesses. Bush is like Reagan, he is always going to be a hero without faults to the Republicans. But Reagan while in office lost the approval of a majority of Independents and Democrats. Funny, you don't see anyone mention the Reagan approval ratings. The big drop in support has not happened to Bush yet. Bush still has a very popular personal image.

Another contrast between the Reagan years and our present time is the media. At that time, there was an overall moderate mass media bias except for the rise of the "angry white men" on radio talk shows. The Republicans could even fight against their perception of a "liberal media bias." This is quite a contrast to the present right-wing media bias. Now, the lying- (recent lie) hate-filled Rush Limbaugh is NBC's commentator on election night. And NBC is still attacked by the right as one of the most left-biased of the networks.

Enough pissing and moaning. What can the Democratic Party and progressives do?

Among the many pressing needs for the Democrats are:

+ a large rapid-response counter-spin network that actually works,

+ increased organization and networking among the liberal institutions that support a progressive agenda,

+ a suburban progressive issue institution and suburban GOTV network,

+ a cutoff of the flow of hundreds of millions of dollars of special interest money to candidates and campaigns, Democrats are too badly hurt here compared to Republicans.

+ an educational mass media campaign on Bush, Republicans, and the Republican agenda,

+ an overall theme that plays against the Republican two-step of "We are compassionate conservatives and they are tax-and-spend liberals."


To start with the last item in my agenda. A test phrase - "We are fiscally-responsible progressives and they are borrow-and-spend imperialists."

Progressive is a good word, pro-family, pro-environment, pro-life, pro-privacy, pro-Seniors, pro-living wage, pro-job creation, pro tax cuts to those who need them, etc.

"Imperialists" is, I think, a better description than reactionaries or ultra-conservatives as a single word to summarize and disparage our opponents. They are not trying to turn back the clock, they are advocating increased power around the world and into everyone’s life. Their primary support is also coming from the huge businesses to which they can give huge contracts and tax breaks. They are trying to create the big bad Empire and we progressives are trying to preserve the Democratic Republic. Good overall imagery and huge and imperial are close synonyms. The overall conception I think plays well and is consistent.

This test phrase needs focus group testing to see how a Republican counter-attack spin of "My opponent as much as admitted he is a "communist" by saying he is a "progressive" while I am an "imperialist running-dog" plays. I don't think it is a problem, calling someone a communist is probably a dead issue for all except hard-core conservatives. A humorous response to this should play well. It is a lot easier to defend a good candidate against being called a "communist" instead of being called a "liberal." If "imperialist" looks like it doesn't play well go back to "reactionary".

These are some my ideas, I would like to hear other peoples. My marketing research background may be coming too much into play.