Garance France-Rutka writes:

Josh Marshall's rhetorical contribution, that this is an effort to "phase out Social Security," strikes me as being on the right track. I happen to be partial to the "if it's confusing, it must be bad" argument, which honors the average, kind of out-of-it voter's inability to wrap their mind around actuarial tables and the distinctions between trust funds and general funds and how rates of productivity growth and GDP impact the program. Mike Tomasky's suggestion that this be addressed in simple, easy-to-understand television ads is also good, as is all of this back and forth.

I want to emphasize that last point again, because some of the least successful arguments during the general election also managed to become incredible popular on liberal Web sites, and I sincerely hope that people in the liberal blogosphere don't get caught up in similar rhetorical eddies during this debate. There is a very real danger of people in online communities arriving at an enthusiastic consensus about a position that they find pleasing but that doesn't actually help them accomplish anything. It'll be important to avoid that sort of satisfying yet ineffective message on Social Security privatization.

Yes, but how to know which incredibly popular arguments on liberal arguments will be the least successful? And looking backwards, how do you know which arguments were successful?

UPDATE: Incidentally, this discussion lays bare a problem Democrats (including myself) have: we are too ready to jump into tactical discussions and lists of specific programs before agreeing on what our core values are. And I think that tendency, once neutralized, will help inform the answers to my questions above.

Well this should bring a sigh of relief to Matthew Yglesias, who's been fretting ever since Nov 3 about the hard-to-explain boost of Bush support from Latino voters.

NBC Makes Unprecedented Downward Correction in Latino Support for Bush

18-point Margin of Victory for Democrat Kerry Among Hispanics Doubles Previous NBC Estimates; Numbers Affirm WCVI Criticism of National Exit Poll Figures

WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 /PRNewswire/ -- In a stunning admission, an elections manager for NBC News said national news organizations overestimated President George W. Bush's support among Latino voters, downwardly revising its estimated support for President Bush to 40 percent from 44 percent among Hispanics, and increasing challenger John Kerry's support among Hispanics to 58 percent from 53 percent. The revision doubles Kerry's margin of victory among Hispanic voters from 9 to 18 percent. Ana Maria Arumi, the NBC elections manager also revised NBC's estimate for Hispanic support for Bush in Texas, revising a reported 18-point lead for Bush to a 2-point win for Kerry among Hispanics, a remarkable 20-point turnaround from figures reported on election night. [...]

The more information comes out about the exit polls, when they were right and where they were wrong, and actual voting behavior (to say nothing of actual counting of ballots), it looks like we should hold off on any more "revise Democratic strategy" sessions until at least January, when more reliable data can be assembled and analyzed with some degree of confidence.

Donkey Rising has more here and here on the ongoing revision of Hispanic numbers, and here on the declining Bush margin as the raw vote totals are finalized state-by-state.

We need money.