Jeff Porten is aghast at the concerns expressed by key Democratic leaders that the Democratic voters won't turn up in sufficient numbers to defeat the Republican majorities in the House and Senate in the 2006 midterm elections. Specifically, he charges them with not properly communicating the obvious reasons why every Democrat in the country should turn out to vote. Summarized, and with Jeff's original links (all from today's Washington Post), they are as follows:

1) The Republicans are screwing up the reconstruction effort in Iraq.
2) The Republicans are hurting our troops' mental health in Iraq.
3) The Republicans are soft on the environment.
4) The Republicans lied to the 9/11 commission on how the FAA & NORAD reacted to the terrorist attacks.
5) The Republicans are abusing power with regard to the use of special military courts.
6) The Republicans are (still) soft on the environment.
7) The Republicans have overused and underfunded the National Guard.
8) The Republicans are (still) soft on the environment.
9) The Republicans have failed to stabilize Iraq.
10) The Republicans have (still) failed to stabilize Iraq.
11) The Republicans have ineffectively run the FDA, as evidenced by their inability to review and approve the emergency contraceptive pill Plan B.
12) The Republicans have maintained a presence on the Kansas State Board of Education with someone who believes Intelligent Design should be taught in classrooms instead of (or along side of?) Darwinism.

As I see it, Jeff is right to criticize the Democratic leaders, but then proceeds to commit the same exact sin he's accusing them of committing. Instead, they should take the advice of their target market: a socially moderate, registered Republican in a democratic-leaning state with a significant number of electoral votes (read: me). OK, everyone listening? Here goes:

1) Your message has not been communicated well, and that's something you need to get better at doing.

2) Your message has got to be something more than "The Republicans <insert bad thing here>." As long as that's all you're doing, whatever debate occurs will focus on the Republicans' agenda, and I promise you they have arguments prepared to defend their positions on each of these issues.

3) The only people you're going to convince with these arguments are the people that would vote for a Democratic doorknob before any Republican. Even the best GOTV campaign is not going to win an election with only these people. As incredible as it may seem to people within that group, the group isn't large enough to elect a significant number of people (and certainly not the President of the United States).

4) The reason for #3 is that all of the hypothetical Republican bashing melts away as soon as people are faced with a choice between an actual Democrat and an actual Republican. It's far easier to paint the opposition party as evil monsters than a particular individual. Why? Because that individual will stand up and explain his position. And if he's a halfway decent politician (and, let's face it, all of them are), he's going to come off sounding dramatically less evil than your GOTV campaign implies. Lots of people will hate the Republicans in general, but vote for their own, incumbent Congressman because "he's a good guy who gets it."

5) The way to escape this vicious cycle is to find candidates with their own ideas on how to lead. Bill Clinton was such a candidate, and it's the reason he's the only Democrat to serve two terms as President since FDR. JFK was that kind of candidate too, but we'll never know how his second election would have turned out. Even Al Gore had a lot of independent ideas (the environment, the social security lockbox, and others), and he probably would have won if he stuck to his message during the campaign, rather than saying absolutely anything that he thought would help secure him a victory.

6) The focus on a "Democratic position" on key issues masks this kind of independent thought. Example: the recent kerfuffle amongst Democrats about when/how many troops we should pull out of Iraq (40,000 right now! Half by the end of the year! All of them by next Fourth of July!) not only makes the party look disorganized, but if a particular candidate actually has a well-reasoned plan for troop withdrawal, including an understanding of what the troops are doing now, who will take over those responsibilities, how long it will take, and what that means for troop levels, it's instantly going to get compared with the various proposals on the table, and fall into a "me too!" category in the next News Cataloging story. He/She will not get the credit he/she deserves for actually thinking it through.

So, take my advice for what it's worth: stop trying to get the whole party elected. Put together the best & brightest minds in the party, sit down with the candidates, and help each one of them shape their message so that their respective constituents know where they stand.

Make the messages start with "The Democrats <insert good thing here>, instead of waiting for Bush to "boil puppies," as Jeff so eloquently puts it. Debate those issues in your local races. Convince the disgruntled Republicans that their Democratic candidate is a "good guy who gets it," and give them a reason to vote for him/her.

It's not as sexy as some grand, national strategy, but it's what your opponents are doing every day, and it's why they keep winning, despite how much you've convinced everyone to hate them.