Carville on the 2004 loss

I saw this at The Chief Source, a Democrat blog, in November 2004.

MR. CARVILLE: The purpose of a political party in a democracy is to win elections. We're not doing that well enough, and I think that we can't deny that the problem exists. I think we have to confront the problem. And by and large, our message has been we can manage problems, while the Republicans, although they will say we can solve problems, they produce a narrative. We produce a litany. They say, "I'm going to protect you from the terrorists in Tehran and the homos in Hollywood." We say, "We're for clean air, better schools, more health care." And so there's a Republican narrative, a story, and there's a Democratic litany. And, you know, at a point, you look at 45 Senate seats, you look at a lost presidential election, and you say, "We have to rethink this thing." I really believe that.

MR. RUSSERT: But you're suggesting the Democrats lost, that George Bush didn't win.

MR. CARVILLE: Well, I'm suggesting--look, I said both. I gave him enormous credit. I said it was the signature political achievement of my life, but it wasn't just this election--and I think it's an election that people wanted change. I think if we had produced--the party itself--I just don't want to focus on Senator Kerry or his campaign. This is not the first election that we've lost. There's--something is setting in here.

Now, having said that, my friends caution me, and they're right. I mean, 48 percent--I mean, we're not starting in terms of shambles here, but I think this is a message to the Democratic Party: We need to produce a narrative. We need to be more about solving problems as opposed to managing them, and I think it's going to be interesting to see how it comes out.

Now it's the Republicans saying we're for clean air, better schools, and more health care, and the Democrats are for hope and change. They've switched focuses. Democrats decided they don't win with Hollywood and have gone to church. Republicans decided to go to warm and fuzzy specifics that sound good and offer nothing. It worked. Carville is one smart guy (he married a Republican). At that time (November 2004), Obama was preferred by 3% of Democrats, Hillary Clinton by 25%.

I watched all those weepy Democrats and sad faced media-folk in the post 2004 election analyses. They really focused on religion and cultivating the grass roots as the keys to winning (so long Hollywood celebs--see you after the election). And it worked--at least in Ohio--in 2006. We elected a former Methodist minister as our next governor. Very pious man, nice looking, good machine. But it really grates on my nerves to see him in ads for the state lottery.

Evangelicals have helped. The "emergent church" movement has decided the message of the cross isn't nearly as much fun as social feel-good topics and flashy worship services with loud music. So we can't give the Democrats all the credit.