TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR 2008 DEMOCRATS - from new focus groups of pollster Frank Luntz

Excerpt from Frank Luntz new report "A First Look at 2008 Democrats" via a liberal site | March 31, 2006 | Frank Luntz, pollster

[summer]

A well known liberal site posted this, and I thought it made for some interesting reading -- it came from Frank Luntz' recent research with focus groups. The voters were Dems, located in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[summer]

Interesting to hear from voters.

[summer]

FYI.

[bray]

Focus on Symbolism not Substance!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[summer]

I thought it was surprising they did not want to focus on Bush-bashing. Who knows, maybe that means we will have a real debate on issues!

[summer]

But, yes, I agree with you: Iraq is an issue. For them to ignore it may mean they lose the election.

[Dog Gone]

It may sound like a Gary Hart-esque approach but Democrats are really looking for a nominee with new ideas, someone with an innovative approach.

And that is their achilles heel. No such Democrat exists.

[TruthWillWin]

The Dems are doomed. No way in hell they'll make it past #2!

[McGavin999]

LOL, that's exactly what I was thinking. There isn't one single candidate who is capable of doing any of the things listed.

[TruthWillWin]

They can't. When they tell the public what they really want (high taxes, socialism) they lose every time.

[ken5050]

#10 is a great big oxymoron..No Dem can secure the nomination, unless he/she is way far/left.towards kooksville.which makes that person unelectable..

[MinuteGal]

I pray they continue to focus on Bush-bashing. Let them expend their breath, energy and treasure on Bush-bashing. I hope they turn blue Bush-bashing for the next two years.

In fact, I hope the 'Rats ignore all of Luntz's admonitions. They most certainly will, in my opinion. Since the recommendations are titled "The Ten Commandments" that'll scare the Dems away like wolfbane drives Dracula away.

Leni

[dr_who_2]

6. Be a Deficit Democrat. Every time a Democratic candidate talked about ending wasteful spending and tackling the deficit, the dials spiked up, as did the approval. In the arena of deficit spending, there really isn't much difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Alot can change in two years. A gulf exists between Republicans and the wacky left Democrats, but Republicans and Democrats who have anything to say about appropriations might as well be sleeping with each other, and Republicans are often worse because they're in power.

Remember that Clinton came in out of nowhere and won the presidency, as did Carter, both of them claiming to be "moderates". He could have imploded completely on several occasions before and after he got in office, but the press (and public apathy or dissatisfaction with Bush/Nixon/Ford) came to his rescue.

The fact that the Democrat party has survived as long as it has is due to the fact that people aren't as smart as they think they are and history repeats itself as a result.

[JulieRNR21]

Remember that Clinton came in out of nowhere and won the presidency, as did Carter, both of them claiming to be "moderates". He could have imploded completely on several occasions before and after he got in office, but the press (and public apathy or dissatisfaction with Bush/Nixon/Ford) came to his rescue.

---

Perot playing the spoiler (he took 17% of the vote) was a big factor in helping Clinton sneak into the WH.

I fear that could help his wife sneak in in 2008. GOP muct stand together to defeat her or any other Dem.

[dr_who_2]

Yes, but I don't think Perot would have had a chance of being a spoiler if Bush wasn't directionless to begin with. "Dirty tricks" is wishful defeatist thinking. Spoilers usually only are spoilers when voters are pissed off at both parties,leaving a plurality of gullible, self-absorbed idiots.

[dr_who_2]

As for Hillary, I think the threat of her winning a presidential election has been over exaggerated.

[dr_who_2]

Don't count on it. On the electability part, you're mostly right. On securing the nomination, I think it's a question of what the party elite wants. They either want to sit out another four years or they desperately want power again.

[tcrlaf]

Clinton may have come out of nowhere, but AMERICANS learned a harsh lesson from that.....

And 42% won't win another election, as EVERYONE knows the cost of a 3rd Party candidacy is....

[dr_who_2]

Even <42% has won presidential elections in the past. Third parties may not directly bring about those "political realignments", but they tend to become prominent before they happen. We've seen what happens when the majority party changes: more of the same. What we don't see too often is a lasting change in what the major parties really stand for.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org

[summer]

Re your post #8 - LOL...