Raise don't call

The current endlessly debated question among Democrats is "how can we start winning elections?" Democrats, long the majority in the House and in control of the Senate more often than not is playing catch-up. The House went Republican in 1994 and the Senate in 2002. The White House, well, we all know that story. Since 1980, Republicans have been in the Oval Office 17 of the last 25 years. How do Democrats win elections? Fielding better candidates is a good start but without a "brand" it's just someone trying to sell you something rather than you being excited about buying. They knock down the doors to buy iPods not Democrats.

David Mamet in the Los Angeles Times has a brilliant poker/political strategy piece that is must reading for anyone interested in how the Demcrats can win elections. It's what the Curmudgeon has been saying, although not as eloquently as Mr. "first place gets a Cadillac, second place gets a set of steak knives, third place you're fired." I've said ala The Untouchables, if they pull a knife you pull a gun, if they send one of yours to the hospital you put two of theirs in the morgue. That's the Capone, Chicago and political way.

Mamet wrote, "In combat, in politics, in poker, there is no certainty; there is only likelihood, and the likelihood is that aggression will prevail." Another gem, "The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative." Whereas, "[t]he Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country." Amen.

I don't know what the magic branding needs to be, maybe something George Carlin talked about on Real Time With Bill Maher, that is that the right wingers - Republicans, are mainly interested in property and property rights and left of center - Democrats, are mainly interested in people and human rights. Not a bad place to start. A sort of grand unification theory for Democrats and Republicans. Look at Katrina, Republicans are interested in the looting of some televisions, (except in Iraq), who gets free $2000 debit cards, no-bid contracts for their friends at Halliburton and Bechtel and suspending minimum wage laws for workers doing the reconstruction. Democrats are interested in getting food, shelter and a chance for a better life for the victims of Katrina and bad government. It's a clear difference.

Leading i.e. raising, is not about following the pack and running ahead to get in front of it. It's about getting the pack to follow you when you are already in front. Take a stand, go all in. If you lose elections in the short run it won't be much different than what's going on now. Let the Republicans show the country how bad it can get under their governance. People are figuring it out. They will see the bad product they are buying. Offer a better, bolder more elegantly designed product and they will beat down the doors to vote for it.

On the other hand, the real world example of a bad product that runs poorly is a monopoly/dictatorship. Microsoft Windows, a error and security-ridden operating system has over 90% of the market and a bold, brilliant and elegantly designed, perfectly functioning and secure product like Apple OS X Tiger has about 3%. So much for relying on the good sense of the American public to figure it out. But it's still worth the risk.

BONUS POSTING: Last night on Faux News' The O'Leilly Factor, Former judge Andrew Napolitano, identified as not just a "judicial analyst" but a "senior judicial analyst" said of the recent pledge of allegiance ruling that "under god in the pledge of allegiance is not religious, it's not an affirmation of religion, it's cultural and historical accepted since 1954." Uh-huh. And the nativity scene is just a argument for better pre- and postnatal health care.