• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are Democrats too confident in 2008 election race?

ProfJohn

Lifer
Yes Bush has a 30% approval rating.
And yes most Americans are unhappy with the war.

At the same time though congress has an approval rating of 11%.

Then we have the recent victory by a Republican in Louisiana, only the third Republican to run that state in 130 years.

Add this all together and maybe 2008 isn?t as sure a thing as the Democrats think.
link
LOWELL, Massachusetts (Reuters) - Mary Burns has the kind of Democratic pedigree that dominates Massachusetts politics. Her family and friends vote Democratic, and she lives in a district that has not elected a Republican in 35 years.

But on October 17, she joined other disgruntled Democrats, voting for a Republican in a special congressional election.

Her candidate, Jim Ogonowski, who campaigned as an anti-immigration crusader, lost to Democrat Niki Tsongas by only 45 percent to 51 percent, a much closer margin than expected in a district Democrats saw as safely theirs.

Now political strategists across the country are trying to figure out what Ogonowski's strong showing means for the nation as a whole and how worried Democrats should be about next year's elections for president and Congress.

Despite President George W. Bush's low poll standing, the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the formidable money advantage Democrats have established over their Republican rivals, last week's vote warned Democrats not to get overconfident.

"There's a lot they still have to be nervous about," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University.

"The shakiness of this particular victory in Massachusetts is the kind of thing that sends a message to the national leadership as they start to think about the next cycle."

Democrats should remember that the Iraq war will not be the only issue in 2008 and that the party's stance on immigration in particular -- most favor allowing illegal immigrants a path to legal status -- could be an Achilles heel, he added.

Ogonowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and brother of an American Airlines pilot killed in the September 11 attacks, was never expected to threaten Tsongas, widow of Sen. Paul Tsongas, in a district her late husband once represented.

Former President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi campaigned with Tsongas. For some voters, their presence reinforced her image as a Washington insider. Ogonowski downplayed his Republican ties and instead vowed to fix a "broken Congress" and fight illegal immigration.

While Tsongas tried to make the election a referendum on Bush and the war, Ogonowski issued fliers that overlapped images of Tsongas and Bush with the words "Niki Tsongas/George Bush Immigration Plan: Amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants."

'ONE OF US'

"He was like one of us," Burns said of Ogonowski.

"He wasn't from a political background or a political family. He was just looking for changes in Washington like we all are. I have a lot of Democratic friends who voted for him because he understood their concerns," the 46-year-old advertising executive added.

Some Republicans also drew confidence from Saturday's election of Republican U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal as governor of Louisiana. The incumbent Democratic governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, still blamed for post-Hurricane Katrina incompetence, decided not to seek re-election.

"Jindal walked away with that race," said Democratic pollster Dave Beattie, who is not affiliated with a campaign.

"There's a real anti-incumbent, anti-Washington mood out there," he said. "Democrats cannot take for granted that just because voters are upset with the Republican administration it doesn't mean they think Democrats are much better right now."

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said overconfidence was a risk for both parties. He recalled that many Republicans never imagined they could lose control of both houses of Congress last year.

"While there is no question that the current political environment nationally looks to benefit Democrats, it is over a year before anybody will actually go and vote. A year is an eternity in politics," he said.

"Think back a year ago. A year ago there were still a number of Republicans who were convinced that we weren't going to lose the House or the Senate. So many things can change over the course of year," said Fabrizio, who is not affiliated with a campaign in 2008.
 
Bobby Jindal won because Kathleen Blanco was so inept, ignorant, stupid, retarded, and every other word for imbecile that you can think of.

It was fashionably cool to blame Bush for everything (which alot of it he deserved) but when you are from here you know where the blame goes and it was Blanco and Nagin for 99% of it.

Jindal ran against her and barely lost the last time because of some negative ads being run about his religious beliefs and his ethnicity.

People realized they fucked up and were going to fix their mistake this time.
 
magic 8-ball says "Ask Again in 6 Months"

congressional approval ratings are basically meaningless if people are blaming republican stonewalling + bush veto's for the inability to get anything now.
 
I am never too confident, and I plan to give more than average to the nominee this year.
However, I am encouraged by the numbers, and the fact that Republicans are spending every day obstructing and reminding the voters why they need to give the presidency in addition to a larger majority in Congress to the Democrats.
 
Yes, the Democrats are way too confident, considering that they don't have a damned platform to run on. Just like in 2004, the Democrats are trying to run on the idea that they're the better party by virtue of not being the Republicans. They blew it in 2004 and got us 4 more years of Bush, and they're going to blow it again in 2008. They're squabbling like children and throwing mud and generally making themselves look like asses.
 
Is Karl Rove still alive?
Then Dems are not over confident. At least in the Presidential race.
And if a Republican wins for President the Dems will still increase their majorities in Congress.
The coming perpetual Democratic majority is already here.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Yes, the Democrats are way too confident, considering that they don't have a damned platform to run on.

are you living in a cave or something?

Apparently. Pray tell, what's the universal Democratic platform? Is there a specific set of goals that all of them are looking to cheerlead for?

I see mixed opinions on everything from the war to gay rights to healthcare reform and everything in between.

I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, the Dems certainly aren't doing a great job at making themselves well known for sticking to their guns. They pussy out every time they are pushed by the Republicans.
 
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Yes, the Democrats are way too confident, considering that they don't have a damned platform to run on.

are you living in a cave or something?

Apparently. Pray tell, what's the universal Democratic platform? Is there a specific set of goals that all of them are looking to cheerlead for?

I see mixed opinions on everything from the war to gay rights to healthcare reform and everything in between.

I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, the Dems certainly aren't doing a great job at making themselves well known for sticking to their guns. They pussy out every time they are pushed by the Republicans.

Expand SCHIP coverage. They are sticking by that gun, you better believe it.
 
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: teclis1023
Yes, the Democrats are way too confident, considering that they don't have a damned platform to run on.

are you living in a cave or something?

Apparently. Pray tell, what's the universal Democratic platform? Is there a specific set of goals that all of them are looking to cheerlead for?

I see mixed opinions on everything from the war to gay rights to healthcare reform and everything in between.

I hope I'm wrong, but if I am, the Dems certainly aren't doing a great job at making themselves well known for sticking to their guns. They pussy out every time they are pushed by the Republicans.

health care reform, schip, getting rid of don't ask / don't tell, changing the direction in Iraq (if not a complete withdraw, the beginnings of a phased withdraw or adoption of the Baker plan).

while the candidates differ on the specifics -- and that's what a primary is for -- it certainly seems more concrete than the Republicans "Anyone But Hillary" platform.
 
Originally posted by: techs
...
The coming perpetual Democratic majority is already here.


A mjority only lasts until they show that they can not accomplish anything and/or are out of step with their constituents
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
health care reform, schip, getting rid of don't ask / don't tell, changing the direction in Iraq (if not a complete withdraw, the beginnings of a phased withdraw or adoption of the Baker plan).

while the candidates differ on the specifics -- and that's what a primary is for -- it certainly seems more concrete than the Republicans "Anyone But Hillary" platform.

I definitely support Healthcare Reform and getting rid of discrimination in the military. I am unsure whether I think we should exit Iraq, considering the giant mess we've made, but I'm open to that as well.

I also agree with you that the Republicans don't actually have much of a platform either. Unfortunately, they have cemented the idea that they are the "Values and Morals party" in America to the point that they don't have to have a blazing platform to still 'stand for something.'

I think I want Obama in 2k8, I'm just not sure the Dems have it together to put forth the image of a unified, strong party. (read: Congress)
 
I don't think they're too confident. They have not forgotten 04. I certainly haven't. It still makes me ill. They read the national polls that have Hillary/Guiliani running neck and neck. I wouldn't write off people who do for a living what we're engaging in here for fun.

It's anyones race, especially with a year left in the campaign. Are there actually any democrats out there saying "it's in the bag"?

"While there is no question that the current political environment nationally looks to benefit Democrats, it is over a year before anybody will actually go and vote. A year is an eternity in politics," he said.

I think that sums it up.
 
Let's be honest here, the democrats have not impressed much. Besides Jim Webb and a few others, they are largely useless.

But look on the bright side. Even if a republican wins, as long as it isn't fred thompson, GWB will no longer be in office! I can't see Romney or Mccain as being as bad as bush. Giuliani is another story though. HE already has some authoritarian proclivities. Combine the fact he isn't as stupid as bush with all the power bush has lifted for el Presidente, it could be a bad combination.
 
I would almost say the repubs have less of a platform than the dems. Ron Paul has ideas. The rest of the pubs are fellating yes-men with no original idea in the lot of them. Of the dems I've heard nothing special besides some ideas from Swillary to jack up federal spending as quickly as she possibly can.

I mostly want the dems to win next time because the republicans need a smack across the face and to piss off for a bit. However, the dems continue to suck so much that I almost want them lose just to try and REALLY drive the message home because frankly they are not trying hard enough. The republicans suck because they are imbeciles. The democrats suck because they are just lazy.

HE already has some authoritarian proclivities. Combine the fact he isn't as stupid as bush with all the power bush has lifted for el Presidente, it could be a bad combination.

Giuliani will be every bit as bad as Bush, I fear. He's not as stupid, but he doesn't even pretend to himself that he's a godly, good person.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I would almost say the repubs have less of a platform than the dems. Ron Paul has ideas. The rest of the pubs are fellating yes-men with no original idea in the lot of them. Of the dems I've heard nothing special besides some ideas from Swillary to jack up federal spending as quickly as she possibly can.

I mostly want the dems to win next time because the republicans need a smack across the face and to piss off for a bit. However, the dems continue to suck so much that I almost want them lose just to try and REALLY drive the message home because frankly they are not trying hard enough. The republicans suck because they are imbeciles. The democrats suck because they are just lazy.

HE already has some authoritarian proclivities. Combine the fact he isn't as stupid as bush with all the power bush has lifted for el Presidente, it could be a bad combination.

Giuliani will be every bit as bad as Bush, I fear. He's not as stupid, but he doesn't even pretend to himself that he's a godly, good person.

What I was getting at was he might be worse than bush considering he's not as stupid but will have all the power bush has. Bush has largely spent his power on getting more power. Who knows what Rudy will do with it.
 
Non Prof John derives confidence from some off year elections in which Republicans did well or better than expected against weak democrats. The democrat still won the congressional race and the Republican won the governors race. More importantly, Jandal, the Republican winner in the Governors race won on the proven failure of the democrats and the republican losers in the congressional race did much better than expected because he was judged to have fresh new ideas to bring to congress.

Not to over generalize, but we can somewhat say voters don't like a track record of failure and are willing to listen to bold new ideas.

Now when we come to at least the 2008 Presidential race, all the republican candidates are running on a platform of I am like the proven failure GWB while the Republican congress is running is making sure no bold new ideas make it past their filibusters. And hence making sure only the old republican ideas survive. The very ideas that led to the proven failure in the first place.

Looking at the above paragraph and the one sentence above it, does anyone see the Republican disconnect for 2008? Thanks for the excellent example PJ, it should have republicans rushing to get their anti depressants on their next stop way to the garbage dump of history.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yes Bush has a 30% approval rating.
And yes most Americans are unhappy with the war.

At the same time though congress has an approval rating of 11%.

Then we have the recent victory by a Republican in Louisiana, only the third Republican to run that state in 130 years.

Add this all together and maybe 2008 isn?t as sure a thing as the Democrats think.

Their platform has problems, (2004- anyone but Bush), but the Republicans having betrayed their small government base and performed horribly on fighting the war don't really have anything to run on either.

When people are mad, the incumbents are doomed and although Dems took Congress last year I believe the anti-Republican sentiment from 06 remains and will prevail in 08.
 
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
A majority only lasts until they show that they can not accomplish anything and/or are out of step with their constituents

Yep. And Pelosi and Reid have sealed that envelope!

 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
A majority only lasts until they show that they can not accomplish anything and/or are out of step with their constituents

Yep. And Pelosi and Reid have sealed that envelope!
Hardly, they might not have done anything much but that also means that unlike the Republicans they haven't done anything bad in comparison. What this means is that you shouldn't be too optomistic about your parties chances because when they were in power they fucked up bad and that's still fresh on the voters minds.
 
Republicans platform for 2008 is "If you are pissed off about the Democrats not getting anything done, vote for us because we are the ones who blocked the Democrats from getting anything done. Look, we even blocked that health coverage for children you all supported. "
I say stay with that platform, it's a winner.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hardly,they might not have done anything much but that also means that unlike the Republicans they haven't done anything bad in comparison. What this means is that you shouldn't be too optomistic about your parties cahncdes because when they were in power they fucked up bad and that's still fresh on the voters minds.

Bolded part understatement of the year :laugh:

Pelosi's Armenian Genocide charade alone will be enough to seal her fate. If she keeps it up, Sheehan is gonna take her position :laugh:

The mainstream media will certainly work as hard as possible to create mass anti-Republican sentiment - as they did in 2006 - but two years later, will anyone care? Especially when Hillary is looming overhead?

(And note I agree that Republicans made a lot of mistakes while in tenure the last 6 years - most notably leaving fiscal conservatism behind.)
 
Back
Top