One reason this year's election seems so long is because it really began when the 2006 election ended. That contest, which saw Democrats unexpectedly sweep both the House and the Senate, finally turned in favor of the good guys—after distractions over relatively minor issues—because it finally became a mandate over one sweeping, presidential issue: George W. Bush. The electorate, of course, mandated a change.
That’s where we started. Now, with Democrats battling longer than expected, and voters again getting distracted by relatively minor issues like whether Barack listens to his ex-minister or Hillary listens to economists, Philly For Change is launching a new campaign to focus attention back to the BIG issues: Bush, his policies on war, healthcare, Social Security and the environment, and the one man who stands in the way of changing them.
That’s why from now until November and in more ways than one, Philly For Change is Philly Against McCain.
First, what's at stake: this election is the best opportunity to change the national political agenda that either we Democrats in general, or we Progressives in particular, have had in 30 years. Add to the unexpected 2006 Congressional sweep this year’s very favorable Senate election schedule (Republicans defend 23 seats while Democrats defend only 12) and you get an election when a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress is fairly assured. (That hasn’t happened in a long time.) So a new Democratic president likely would have an even more Democratic Congress to help create, debate, and pass a political agenda that also becomes the center of American politics--both in the media and for real--for a minimum of two years.
Add to that an unprecedented-in-a-very-long-time consensus not just among progressives, but among Democrats, and even the electorate as a whole, to place specific progressive goals at the top of that agenda. These include ending the war, withdrawing from Iraq, universal healthcare (the first substantive social program since 1965’s Great Society and Medicare), saving Social Security without privatizing it, and investing in--and regulating for--a new Green Economy.
You could argue that’s a more ambitious, more progressive agenda than any president has gone into office with since at least Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and even he didn’t promise bring the troops home.
Remember too that a Democratic President and a stronger Democratic Congress could finally renew the national dialog on social justice, finally add economic fairness goals--about which there may not yet be consensus--to the national agenda. Control the White House and Congress and you control political debate (and I haven't even mentioned the judiciary); long-ignored issues of great importance to Philly finally get aired; programs and solutions not yet dreamed of could become possible.
Only one man stands in the way of all that change: John McCain.
Make no mistake: on the largest issues we face today, issues as international as the war and the environment, as important as healthcare and Social Security, and as local as social justice, McCain is FAR worse than Clinton or Obama, and the same as Bush: he’s truly McSame, the enemy of change.
That’s why Philly For Change is launching Philly Against McCain. We’re starting work now to help win the critical swing state of Pennsylvania in November, with a plan inspired by Ray’s winning strategy with Philly Against Santorum. By focusing on the values and goals that we Philadelphians share, we can help turn out the numbers we’ll need from this most progressive corner of the state, so we can overwhelm the places where McCain will be strong and help bring victory both statewide and nationally. We plan to use both field and messaging to help bring the record numbers that came out in Philly for the primary back out to vote Democratic in November. We’re also planning to focus efforts on nearby areas where voter apathy or voter antipathy might conspire to help McCain.
Come on Obama fans and Hillary fans! Help us take the first positive step together toward victory in November. Come out to Wednesday’s Philly For Change Meetup at 7:00 at Tritone, 1508 South Street. It’s both a launching party for Philly Against McCain and a planning session. Bring your good ideas! Also bring your best reason to vote Against McCain and pin it up on the McCain Dirty Laundry Line.
Hope to see you there,
Sam Durso
Elections and Endorsement Chair
Philly For Change
Some comments on tone
I get that there are many similarities between McCain and Bush with respect to certain policies. However, I have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the rhetoric in this post (as I did to a PFC email with the same rhetoric). I don't think that it's accurate to portray McCain as the same as Bush. I think that there are, in fact, some fairly significant differences.
That could just be more of a semantical argument or just one of personal perspective more or less, except..... I think that people who might be on the fence - and I assume that they are the target of an initiative such as this one - probably even more than I, view McCain differently than how they view Bush. I question the strategy of simply dismissing the notion that there is a difference, as I think it might alienate some percentage of your target audience from your larger message. I realize that the goal may be to get more people to realize just how aligned McCain is with Bush on certain key policies, and I see how given Bush's high negative ratings that would be a viable electoral strategy - but still, I think a lack of nuance in how such a strategy is employed might have some blowback. You run the risk of pushing anyone who see McCain as different than the fringe lunatics that have held sway in the Republican Party further into the Republican camp.
(Yet another example of why I get paid the big bucks for political consultation.)
What is the difference?
That McCain wants to be known as a moderate? I mean seriously Josh, I hear you on tone, but what is the difference exactly? That's why MoveOn put together this quiz--to highlight the lack of difference, and in some cases more extreme stuff McCain is for/has done:
http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com
And here's more info for you to review if you don't know off the top of your head:
http://pol.moveon.org/mccain10/email.html
Part of my point, Ray,
is that whether I can verify a difference or not, there might be a blowback to being so uncategorical that no difference exists. In doing so, you are making a strategic decision to buck the common portrayal of McCain in the mass media. I question the effectiveness of doing that.
As I see it, there is a significant difference in that McCain has, at least in the past, taken policy stances which have (at least to some degree), alienated him from the lunatic fringe (e.g., campaign finance, immigration, taxes). Most important to me, although he has recently courted religious fanatics, there is clearly a fissure between him and the fundies that doesn't exist with Bush.
I realize that those are arguable differences to some extent. But perception is reality in this case, in that there is some distance between McCain and the fundies and the lunatic fringe. My assumption is that people who distinguish themselves from the fundies and the lunatic fringe are your target. If you diminish those differences, you run the risk of having them be more likely, not less likely, to align with the fundies and far-right loons. I tend to doubt that your target audience is going to go to MoveOn's website to read up on the details.
i mean i hear ya, but...
I do get what you are saying, but this is Philly Against MCain that PFC is talking about, not a national strategy (although even there. I'd argue that the "differences" are about pandering to the base vs. appeal via "maverick" status). As such, I don't think we're talking so much about "fundies" voting for McCain, we're largely talking about those who'd vote McCain over Obama, especially if they thought McCain was a moderate.
But Ray
My point is that you're talking about people who might vote for Obama (or, heh, Clinton) because they distinguish themselves from fundies. Why, then, dismiss those differences? They might be alienated by being wrongly categorized. I'm just saying that it seems to me to make more sense to argue with some nuance about how McCain is similar to Bush in ways that would get better traction and are clearly different than the Democratic nominee: health care, Iraq, etc., rather than make a blanket comparison. Ok, that's enough free advise. I'll have to charge you for any more comments.
I didn't pay you Josh, but I want a refund anyway
Josh, what are the differences? You are avoiding that.
-You mentioned immigration. That isn't true. Bush and McCain have basically been on the same page.
-Tax cuts. Not true. McCain once voted against the Bush tax cuts, but then changed his tune, and now supports them.
-Campaign Finance reforms. Yes, on this one, slightly different. (But, even here, he has since basically sold his soul.)
The point is that the media portrays him as a 'maverick,' which is 99.9 percent not true. Why in the world would Philly for Change- or anyone else- at all feed into that? The easiest way to sink McCain- as you basically acknowledged- is to tie him to Bush, and his policies, over and over and over. More Americans are concerned about McCain's ties to Bush then about Jeremiah Wright. Why wouldn't you exploit that by pointing out the truth?
too complicated
this is about white Philadelphia Democrats.
Enumeration
1) John McCain has publically called on U.S. officials not to torture detainees.
2) John McCain does not believe that global warming is a myth.
3) John McCain periodically speaks out against wasteful spending and the role of money in politics.
There are two problems with this, though. The first is that each of these ticks in McCain's favor relative to Bush masks a serious problem in McCain's politics -- his die-hard advocacy of war in Iraq (and expansion to Iran and elsewhere), his disbelief in the foreclosure crisis, his wishful-thinking-at-best plans to balance the budget and manage the economy, etc.
The second, I think, cuts more to the bone: Is a momentary and tangential brush with reality/morality enough to make a Republican moderate? Is this what counts as triangulation now? Is this really what American voters are willing to settle for?
It's a matter of perspective
In comparison to, say, Dick Cheney, yes, McCain may seem a moderate. But that's like saying that, compared to the Medusa, the Bride of Frankenstein wasn't bad looking.
-Z
Not if waterboarding equals torture
See, but this is what I am talking about....
1) McCain, in trying to shore up his base has abandoned even small sensibilities. For example, while he once spoke out against waterboarding, he then caved multiple times in trying to ban it.
2) Even Bush now acknowledges global warming- the problem is what he does about it.
3) Bush talks all the time about wasteful spending.
The differences are so, so, so minute at this point, which is why I don't get Josh's point. McCain's only hope in the general is to make himself seem different, which he really isn't. Why would a Democratic campaign help him?
Why would a Dem help McCain
Sadly enough, it seems as if HRC is trying to help McCain by cutting down Obama, so as to give herself a chance to run against him in 2012.
Pathetic, yes. But it does fit the evidence.
-Z
The role of PFC and PAM
would be less about on-the-fence McCain voters than it would be about uniting a somewhat divided Dem party. Philly and surrounding burbs went for Obama, but there were still a tremendous amount of HRC supporters in this area. I'm not a huge fan of the anti vote but in this particular case with so much focus on what Hannah calls the "Hill and Barack show", PAM is an important refresher as to what's at stake in the election, clarifying the broad differences between the parties rather than debating how McCain manipulates his talking points.
Now that, seems to me
to be the real counter-argument to what I'm trying to get at. I understand the "anti-vote" with Santorum because only hardcore Republicans supported him; but, it's different with McCain. If your target is folks who are considering voting for McCain, then it seems that a pro-Obama (or pro-Clinton) campaign might be more effective than an anti-McSame campaign. But if you're right, that the goal is unifying the Dems, then I better understand the strategy.
I'm not sure I uinderstand my point either
But here it is again: If I were someone who was actually considering voting for McCain it would be because I identify as a "moderate" (Republican or Democrat) and consider McCain (rightly or wrongly according to your calculus) as a moderate also.
It stands to reason that anyone who isn't firmly decided that they're voting Republican falls into the 70% of Americans who disapprove of Bush's presidency. So yeah, McCain needs to "make himself different" than Bush. But as someone considering voting for McCain, chances are that I believe that he is different than Bush, and that he is different than the more extreme elements of the Republican Party that Bush has come to represent - religious fanatics, global-warming skeptics, etc.
If your approach is to tell me that I'm wrong, you know better than I do, and that there is no real difference, and that in reality what I see as being differences are trivial, I'm likely to just dismiss your message. If instead, you focus on the specifics how how I might differ from McCain's politics - his stance on Iraq, health care, other economic issues, I'd be more receptive.
I dunno, I guess I'd just see myself as being more open to what you have to say if your approach isn't predicated on the concept that I'm an asshole for considering voting for McCain.
Not in Philadelphia
Philly Against McCain, at least to me, is about a unique phenomenon that Philadelphia (and lots of places) will experience this election. Life-long Democrats may chose to vote for a white man who they hope, or think, is moderate over a black man who has been saddled with some pretty weird baggage about race.
There may be independent, or moderate Republicans who are considering a vote for McCain for the reasons you list above, but that is really not the case in Philadelphia where we routinely have 70-85% Democratic performance in every election.
As for this:
Give PFC a chance. You seem to have condemned the group for lack of substance pretty early Josh. The "rhetorical" email you refer to says:
Meanwhile as Helen points out (with her organizer's eye) for a local group, being against McCain is a great way to unite a still somewhat divided group of Dems (Obama v. Clinton).
Fair enough, Ray
I didn't mean to be condemning - just reacting. Agreed, my reaction may not have been completely balanced. A question: do you have a sense for how many white Dems in Philly voted for Clinton?
once again
we would need ward + division-level data from City Commissioner's office. (It's getting pretty frustrating not having access to that huh?) Then you'd eye-ball it by ward/division or if you had fancy enough software, marry it to census tract data to get that breakdown.
That said, my guess is that the vast majority of Clinton voters will vote for Obama. However, if there are 1-5 % who won't, that is a pretty significant vote loss for Obama statewide in the fall. This is the base turnout portion of the state, so turnout and performance for Obama needs to be as high as possible here. So again, that is why PAM matters.
1-5% is low
At least according to recent polls.
Mind you this was March 26 but Gallup had the number of Clinton voters going for McCain over Obama at 28%, well over the 19% of Obama voters who in the increasingly slim chances Hillary overturns Obama's lead said they would go for McCain.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McC...
That will heal some after the convention but clearly the likelihood of some Dems voting for McCain or sitting on their hands is very, very significant.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
28% is too high
point taken, but i think 1-5 % is more likely for Philly. Maybe 10. You'd have to go look at Regan returns (oh wait, they are not online either) but with R party reg dropping as much as it has, and a 65-35 vote for Obama in Philly, there's no way you are gonna see 1 in 3.5 (28% ish) Clinton voters vote McCain in the fall. Again, maybe I am naive, but that is extreme.
But the point is, even a 5% drop in Obama performance in Philly (which is about 20,000 votes) is a a big deal when our 04 margin statewide for Kerry was only about 120 k.
I know its too high
That was a national poll right before the big showdown in PA and right after Rev. Wright first made news, but its still an eyeopener.
One side issue but sort of an interesting angle - what prime areas for PAM line up with winable contested state races, say in NE or inner ring suburbs. I'm thinking of Kevin Lee from Lansdowne in Delaware County, for example, who might be a prime race to tilt the State House more reliably Dem, a chance to elect an actual progressive with experience in government in DelCo and the first GLBT State Rep to boot. His area is also one of those suburban areas possibly key to swinging our swing state into the blue for the presidential race. Maybe a chance to kill 2 or 3 birds with one stone, as it were.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
yep
that's exactly what PFC steering folks talked about. Hopefully PFC members are into it too,
The PAM strategy and numbers are the obvious ones
Hey. Sorry to post and run but yesterday was my worst day for seasonal allergies since I can't remember when.
Anyway, the position and numbers that Helen and Ray are talking about form the core argument for PAM, as I see it. April 22 we had this unprecedented mass of voters turn out for the Democratic primary. If they show up in November and vote Democrat, the Democratic nominee is closer to winning the swing state of PA, 21 electoral votes closer to winning the White House. Our goal is turning them out. Then all the wonders of Democrats controlling Washington are ours, especially progressives finally getting a seat at a table from which we've been barred for a very long time. Along the way, there are organizing benefits, specifically of bringing together disparate voter groups who identified with either Obama or Clinton (bringing together disparate groups is always a central organizing goal of progressives, as I see it) but especially the possibility of channeling the new energy raised by these two extraordinarily charismatic candidates into something larger or more specific, perhaps broad progressive organizing like PFC, perhaps some positive issues-based organizing.
And the strategy will depend on the nominee: if it's Obama's, we're probably looking at field and messaging campaigns in South Philly and Northeast Philly and select suburbs (not all of them working class, necessarily btw).
If it's Clinton, we're looking at young voters, new voters, non-traditional voters, probably in extended Center City and African-American neighborhoods, but again I would not rule out some middle class suburbs. Might look something like prez organizing circa 2004.
I really appreciate Josh's crit because he raises some interesting points regarding tone. The points that he and Tim raise in defense of McCain whether as an emotional response or to a certain extent as a substantive response--I will never discount torture as a major issue--are worth discussing at the outset. Equating McCain with Bush will have its bumps, and some of them have some substance. But I do stick by my earlier statement:
Just a reminder: equating loyal Republican senators with the president and policies they were loyal to is a strategy that worked in 2006 in places as afar and unlikely as Montana and Virginia. While Santorum was villain enough to attack in PA, remember that even he too was working to distance himself from Bush.
I think that for some voters, as Dan suggests, we face the challenge of breaking down what's left of the old positive TV image of McCain circa 2000 (maverick, anti-Bush, moderate) and exposing it to the realities of McCain 2008:
1. Just like Bush, he lies about Iraq, promotes an ongoing, endless occupation that would clearly last the length of any time he would have in office, thus justifying the future cost of all those Americans' lives, and spending all those hundreds of billions, likely trillions of dollars.
2. Just like Bush, he opposes substantive steps to deal with global warning, whether in new environmental regulation or in investing in alternative energy and technology. Check out how clear and in harmony are Obama's environmental plan and Hillary's environment plan and how threadbare is McCain's.
3. Just like Bush, he opposes universal healthcare. He would leave the millions who Obama's plan or Hillary's plan would cover uninsured, just like Bush.
4. Just like Bush, he wants "privatize" Social Security. 'Nuf said.
5. Just like Bush, he would continue the Republican Party's policy of underfunding social spending (Education, Health, Human Services, Infrastructure, Public Transportation, you name it) a policy that has had grave effect on Philly.
So tone-wise, I think there's probably room for some adjustment in equating McCain with Bush. Some people will object, and we need to plan for that. Some of those adjustments will be contingent on who the Democrat is and whom we're talking to, but I do think that part of what we'll be doing from now until election day is saying, "Hey THIS is what you'll get if you don't vote against McCain. How is this NOT a third term for Bush and his most regressive, destructive policies?"
The real McCain distinction
First things first: McCain is, in no way, shape, or form, a moderate. Someone with an 83% rating from the American Conservative Union is no moderate, and certainly no liberal. The real distinction between McCain and most members of the Republican Right is that he genuinely believes in the concept of the Loyal Opposition.
The concept of a loyal opposition is utterly critical in representative government. It says, in effect, that although you may disagree with various positions of the other party, this does not mean that the other party is the literal embodiment of evil. As demonstrated by McCain-Feingold and his work with Teddy Kennedy on NCLB, McCain clearly believes in the concept of a loyal opposition.
This, however, is unacceptable to a Republican Party whose very governing motivation over the past 40 years (remember Nixon's Enemies List?) has been the condemnation of all thing Democratic as un-American. This helps to explain why Republican governance has been such a ridiculous failure: they fundamentally (pun intended) disagree with one of the most important governing principles in representative government.
Does any of this mean that McCain is a moderate or a liberal? Not at all, merely that he's, perhaps, a Republican conservative who's willing to work with Democrats to advance an agenda. This makes him marginally less dangerous than shrub.
-Z
Big day today
New proposed drinking game: every time Chris Matthews mentions Hillary Clinton and the phrase "a shot and a beer".
Current count at 6, and we're only an hour in!
And you know
A campaign for superdelegates is a very very rarely practiced type of campaigning. It must be completely underdeveloped as a form.
---
I know as a PFCer I am supposed to be all about hatin' on Mccain or whatever, but let's face it, even though I can't stand to watch these two sitcom characters on the "Hill and Barack Show" make little comic jabs at each other anymore, the process is fascinating. I tellya one thing, after this year, the Texas democratic party might be set for the revival it has long needed. And then there's the racial sensitivity lesson that the party is getting...kind of...in small pockets...NO MORE BLOGGING!!!