Centerfield

The Dems are in the position of over-analyzing an irrational electorate. As you put it, much of voting is "tribal." Populism is much more than economic populism!

Wonks and lawyers can argue about the logical and definitional aspects of controversial issues all they like, but in the end most people will vote their gut feelings. This is real populism at work. Cultural populism. The Dems keep pushing ivory-tower "intellectual superior" attitude at the electorate. By reflex, the electorate resists, especially when it goes against that "cultural gut." Talking down to people does not win their votes.

Rick,

Agreed that Sirota makes the common error of many on the left, which is to assume that economics trumps all. As you point out, cultural assumptions and world views are far more important in determining identification with a particular party or candidate.

Voters tend to gravitate towards candidates who project passion and an ineffable authenticity, a sense of being down-to-earth: Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and now Bush. We tend to be suspicious of people who come off as elitist or overly intellectual. We tend to equate leadership with straight talk, even if occasionally awkward and halting - over than high-sounding platitudes carefully calibrated to reflect the latest opinion polls.

One of the reasons that the pre-scream Howard Dean was so popular with the Democratic base (and Kerry so ignored by same) was that he spoke their language and articulated his vision forcefully. Like Bush, even if you did not agree with him, but you knew where he stood.

The left assumes economics trumps all? I didn't see that in Sirota's piece. He points out areas where some Democrats have done what he considers fudging their principles. It happens to be economically. But there are examples of social policy in that realm as well.

I do think PurpleStater gets this right:

Voters tend to gravitate towards candidates who project passion and an ineffable authenticity, a sense of being down-to-earth: Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and now Bush.

That's why Sirota is correct, though. Democrats can't win by presenting themselves as Republican-lite...which is what Sirota is saying. You have to know your beliefs and passionately advocate for them.

I will say this...I tire of being told that Americans don't like people coming off as overly intellectual. I really hope that isn't the case. We are talking about electing the leader of the most powerful nation on earth. If we're really voting against someone for being smart and a thinker...then we may as well go ahead and hang it up.

In terms of Dean/Kerry...PurpleStater is way off the mark. A great deal of Dean's supporters worked to get Kerry elected. They most certainly didn't ignore him.

Re-read what I said, Carla. I said that the "we're intellectually superior" attitude was hurting the Dems. And I wasn't talking about candidates. I was speaking of the vocal rank & file. And I said that talking down to people does not win their votes--which is the same thing expressed slightly differently.

To put it still a third way, if you ridicule the "swing" portion of the majority as knuckle-dragging morons who are too dim to comprehend the brilliance and inherent rightness of your agenda and how it's good for them, do not be startled when they vote for the other guy.

Tully:

I wasn't referring to what you said...but what PurpleStater said:

We tend to be suspicious of people who come off as elitist or overly intellectual.

Like being too smart is a bad thing.

Carla,

It really depends upon how you define "intellectualism". There are all sorts of different areas of intelligence and the term intellectual typicaly only covers very few of them. There is being "book smart", then there is having common sense/wisdom and then there is having the ability to get things done.

I know plenty of PHD's I wouldn't trust to organize a bake sale or get themselves from Manhatten to the Bronx without getting mugged. I think what Tully is pointing out is that image-wise, the Dem's have a problem of over-emphasizing the former to the exclusion of the later. Furthermore, I think the Dem's real problem image-wise can more accurately be described as "elitism" then "intellectualism". Dem candidates (I think Kerry had this problem to extent) far too often fall into exuding the image of "I'm smarter then you, I know whats in your intrest better then you do, so shut up and let me tell you what you want". That is an attitude which really alienates voters (and rightfully so).