Dems, are we going to lose again?

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: PingSpike
Never underestimate the democratic party's ability to fuck it up.

Absolutely QFT. And it would have to be a fuckup of monumental proportions for them to screw this up.

I actually don't think the party can mess up bad enough to lose this time around, not as much as the public is dissatisfied with the handling of the war.

Obama would be the smart candidate. However, Hillary would still win if she got the nomination; she just wouldn't win by as much as Obama would.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you imagine if Kerry won in 2004? Democrats would be on their way to becoming a permanent minority party instead of the GOP. He who laughs last, laughs best.
Anyways, if Hillary is polling 5 points higher than Rudy now, with all her negatives, she is very likely to win. She is pretty much immune to dirt being thrown at her at this point, while she still hasn't gone to work on Rudy.
That's why I'd pick the devil I know over the one I don't. Obama seems good now, but he is still largely a dark horse, no pun intended, as far as the kind of swiftboating he still has to withstand from the right. Kerry looked "electable" around nomination time too. Hillary on the other hand has been attacked so many times for so long, it's factored in now, and it won't do much damage to her. Of course I am going to vote for and give money to whoever the Democrats nominate. Gotta use my Bush tax cut for something

Hillary has never been under a coordinated attack campaign in the national media. The general, uninformed electorate doesnt know about all the skeletons in Hillary's closet yet. The Repubs attack machine is going to take attack ads to a new high, or low, and it's probably going to work.

Such as??? I'm eagerly waiting for the dirt. Is she gay or something?

The House that Hillary Built Time Magazine Jan 1994

So you consider something that has already been published in Time Magazine 13 years ago and didn't go anywhere as "skeletons in the closet?"

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you imagine if Kerry won in 2004? Democrats would be on their way to becoming a permanent minority party instead of the GOP. He who laughs last, laughs best.
Anyways, if Hillary is polling 5 points higher than Rudy now, with all her negatives, she is very likely to win. She is pretty much immune to dirt being thrown at her at this point, while she still hasn't gone to work on Rudy.
That's why I'd pick the devil I know over the one I don't. Obama seems good now, but he is still largely a dark horse, no pun intended, as far as the kind of swiftboating he still has to withstand from the right. Kerry looked "electable" around nomination time too. Hillary on the other hand has been attacked so many times for so long, it's factored in now, and it won't do much damage to her. Of course I am going to vote for and give money to whoever the Democrats nominate. Gotta use my Bush tax cut for something

Hillary has never been under a coordinated attack campaign in the national media. The general, uninformed electorate doesnt know about all the skeletons in Hillary's closet yet. The Repubs attack machine is going to take attack ads to a new high, or low, and it's probably going to work.

Such as??? I'm eagerly waiting for the dirt. Is she gay or something?

The House that Hillary Built Time Magazine Jan 1994

Whitewater is old news and has already had national attention and so has her commodity futures deal. I think it will be a mistake for the GOP to drag all that crap up again. All it does is remind me of how Bill was hounded by a special investigator during his entire term as President and how the same bunch of hypocrits doesn't think Bush/Cheney have done anything wrong worth investigating.

I would hope the R's would have some new mud to rake instead of the same old stuff?

 

[HGC]

I think the Democrats will be very lucky to win with Hillary or Obama, who are both running on a pure left platform. Bill Clinton "triangulated" the left and the right, and ran as a centrist.

I think Americans are eager to elect a woman or a black, but it will have to be someone closer to Thatcher or Colin Powell and farther from Nancy Pelosi or Jesse Jackson.

If Obama or Hillary would come out for economic growth policies instead of socialist redistribution, I think either could win easily.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: senseamp
Can you imagine if Kerry won in 2004? Democrats would be on their way to becoming a permanent minority party instead of the GOP. He who laughs last, laughs best.
Anyways, if Hillary is polling 5 points higher than Rudy now, with all her negatives, she is very likely to win. She is pretty much immune to dirt being thrown at her at this point, while she still hasn't gone to work on Rudy.
That's why I'd pick the devil I know over the one I don't. Obama seems good now, but he is still largely a dark horse, no pun intended, as far as the kind of swiftboating he still has to withstand from the right. Kerry looked "electable" around nomination time too. Hillary on the other hand has been attacked so many times for so long, it's factored in now, and it won't do much damage to her. Of course I am going to vote for and give money to whoever the Democrats nominate. Gotta use my Bush tax cut for something

Hillary has never been under a coordinated attack campaign in the national media. The general, uninformed electorate doesnt know about all the skeletons in Hillary's closet yet. The Repubs attack machine is going to take attack ads to a new high, or low, and it's probably going to work.

It's not going to work. Look at these books that are coming out about her every month now. They all get media coverage, but not much impact if any on her ratings. It's already cooked in the goose so to speak.
The thing is, all these skeletons that you speak of will have to get in line with all the other skeletons that the rightwing attack machine has been throwing at her for decades now, and it's going to be hard for them to stand out from old news. Obama, on the other hand is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, spared the firebombing to make a target for the big bombs later on. So is Giuliani to some extent, because a lot of his scandals are local NY stories waiting to go national.

Why do you keep assuming Guiliani will be the GOP nominee?!?!? No way a pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion social liberal gets past the GOP base in the primaries. I don't care what the polls are telling you, when the process starts, Guiliani will not emerge the winner.

 

[HGC]

Why do you keep assuming Guiliani will be the GOP nominee?!?!? No way a pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion social liberal gets past the GOP base in the primaries. I don't care what the polls are telling you, when the process starts, Guiliani will not emerge the winner.

I think Giuliani does fine with the Republican base. His personal views on abortion, gay marriage and the like don't have much to do with national policy or what he could do as President. He'll appoint conservative justices, as will any Republican now in the running, and that's the end of those issues, in practical terms. I think most evangelical activist types know this and will vote for Guilini on defense and economics.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: HGC
I think the Democrats will be very lucky to win with Hillary or Obama, who are both running on a pure left platform. Bill Clinton "triangulated" the left and the right, and ran as a centrist.

I think Americans are eager to elect a woman or a black, but it will have to be someone closer to Thatcher or Colin Powell and farther from Nancy Pelosi or Jesse Jackson.

If Obama or Hillary would come out for economic growth policies instead of socialist redistribution, I think either could win easily.

I think your wrong if you think Americans are "eager" to elect a woman or a black. Only the really progressive types get all warm and fuzzy when they see a black man that can tie his own shoes, which seems like a subtle, condescending form of racism to me. The rest of us just dont care. I'll vote on the message, sincerity, and qualifications. All I know about Obama at this point is that he's black, and that seems to be the only thing that liberals care about.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hillary up over any Republican even with her negatives. At this point people have made up their mind on Hillary, and if she is already up over Rudy and others, she is in very good shape to win, so I am voting for her

I think the cause for concern is that despite the unpopularity of both the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, Hillary, the Democrat front runner, has a marginal lead over the Republican front runners. A five point lead could easily vanish after one debate.

Hillary has yet to face tough questions from an aggressive opponent, something she is typically unable to handle without coming across as condescending or arrogant. Similarly, her current lead in the polls is due mostly to the positive press she is receiving from the debates...sure, she is to most polished of the Democrat contenders, but her message lacks substance at this point in the game.

In my opinion, Biden came across as the most knowledgeable at the YouTube debate.

 

[HGC]

I think your wrong if you think Americans are "eager" to elect a woman or a black. Only the really progressive types get all warm and fuzzy when they see a black man that can tie his own shoes, which seems like a subtle, condescending form of racism to me. The rest of us just dont care. I'll vote on the message, sincerity, and qualifications. All I know about Obama at this point is that he's black, and that seems to be the only thing that liberals care about.

We may be in agreement. I think most Americans would see a minority president as a plus for the country, assuming that he was the best person for the job otherwise. I agree that voting for someone simply because he has African or Latin American anscestry is racist, but all other things being equal I think it would be healing to the culture, and I think many if not most Americans feel that way.

I think Obama is subtley running on race and not much else, and I think that's why he likely won't win. But if a black FDR or Reagan came along, I think Americans would love that.

 

[BoomerD]

We Democrats are going to get our asses handed to us in the next Presidential election. While Obama may be a decent choice, and Hillary may be "qualified", neither one is electable for President.

I don't know WTF is going on in the Democratic Party lately...Lousy Presidential candidates, even worse Kahleeforneeya Gubernatorial candidates...it's almost like the Dems are as deep in the Repub's pockets as the Repubs were in Abrahamoff's...

 

[HGC]

The Dems now I think are repeating the mistakes of the McGovern era. Most Americans are more or less conservative, and will not be onboard with Sorosism. Bill Clinton ran and won on a tax cut for the middle class.

 

[piasabird]

How can a person win the election for president that has only served one or two terms of office as a senator?

Also if you look at past elections, members of the senate or the house are at a disadvantage losing most of the time to a governor. Look at the election for Bush, or for Clinton. Neither one was in Federal Politics. It is better probably to elect someone outside of the Capital Gateway, or is it?

I am not swayed by good looks or popularity and tend to look at people's records. Old dogs can not learn new tricks.

 

[kage69]

Good luck thinking that.

She has way too much baggage to win it.

Keep it, you'll be the one needing it in life if you really think your input here counts as something insightful or accurate. 'Baggage' stopped being the potential sinker you wish it were some time ago; wtf have you been? Nixon and Bush both had sh!tloads of baggage, didn't seem to stop the moral right from voting for them.

Even if we didn't live in a country where the likes of Marion Barry can be elected, repeatedly, or guys like Ashcroft can actually lose to a dead man - Hillary Clinton still isn't party to the group which has cornholed this country the last 6 years via various Constitutional spats, decisions just dripping with conflict of interest, and the worst military blunder in our history.


Sometimes I forget how much people hate her for not being feminine enough, or just being Bill's wife.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HGC
The Dems now I think are repeating the mistakes of the McGovern era. Most Americans are more or less conservative, and will not be onboard with Sorosism. Bill Clinton ran and won on a tax cut for the middle class.

Exactly. Every one on here, myself included was sure Kerry was a slam dunk in 2004. I never thought he was a great candidate, but I did think he'd win regardless. And now most people seem to be thinking the country has drastically changed enough in the past 3 years that they'll be lining up to vote for Hillary? I don't think so. Even the wave of change in 2006 was trading for moderate democrats.

The democrats will try to slip a turd in there again. They are repeating the same mistakes. They need to run a centrist, charismatic old white dude, preferably good looking. They keep trying to win the war in one move, when they should really just go for a simple battle winning strategy. You want a chance with the southern vote as a democrat, you run a southerner!

 

[dyna]

Hillary and Obama will have a problem winning. US already caters strongly to minorities and women. Despite their platform, their gender/ethic background will put them at a disadvantage.

 

[theeedude]

Why do we need to win the South? Kerry only needed to win Ohio, and he would have been set.
The South can go pound sand, or sheep as the case may be.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why do we need to win the South? Kerry only needed to win Ohio, and he would have been set.
The South can go pound sand, or sheep as the case may be.

I agree, as far as I'm concerned the last thing we need is another President from the south.

That said I like Dodd.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why do we need to win the South? Kerry only needed to win Ohio, and he would have been set.
The South can go pound sand, or sheep as the case may be.

New Mexico and Nevada together could have also swung it for him.

The small Western states were in play had Kerry put more effort into them.

 

[Hacp]

Despite what many people here say, the country is fairly divided between left and right. The United States is not mostly conservative. Its just that a few swing states are centered more towards the moderate right than the moderate left. Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Democrats, although narrowly, took control of congress in 2006.

 

[dyna]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Despite what many people here say, the country is fairly divided between left and right. The United States is not mostly conservative. Its just that a few swing states are centered more towards the moderate right than the moderate left. Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Democrats, although narrowly, took control of congress in 2006.

But if you add in the fact that Bush was widely unpopular and still won means that the country is likely more conservative.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why do we need to win the South? Kerry only needed to win Ohio, and he would have been set.
The South can go pound sand, or sheep as the case may be.

New Mexico and Nevada together could have also swung it for him.

The small Western states were in play had Kerry put more effort into them.

Good for them. But Ohio would have been enough. Dems need West Coast, Northeast and the Midwest. The rest is gravy.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The mere fact that they're not Republican should be enough to win it.

Yeah, that should do it unless we pull a rabbit out of our hats. Iraq has given America the opportunity to have their first woman or black President.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Why do we need to win the South? Kerry only needed to win Ohio, and he would have been set.
The South can go pound sand, or sheep as the case may be.

Yowch...pounding sheep...and I thought our candidate was all about positivity and respecting people even though they have opposing viewpoints.

Anyhow, yes. The dems need only to expand deeper into the midwest to win. I've got my eyes on Missouri, Indiana, and Ohio. Luckily, both democratic front-runners have strong ties to Illinois.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Hacp
Despite what many people here say, the country is fairly divided between left and right. The United States is not mostly conservative. Its just that a few swing states are centered more towards the moderate right than the moderate left. Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Democrats, although narrowly, took control of congress in 2006.

But if you add in the fact that Bush was widely unpopular and still won means that the country is likely more conservative.

It means that the voters in this country were likely more conservative. Or that the Republican machine was much better at getting out the vote.

However, there's definitely been a shift in the political center since the 2004 election. All we need now is for the democratic candidate to convince people who don't normally vote to do so.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: dyna

Originally posted by: Hacp
Despite what many people here say, the country is fairly divided between left and right. The United States is not mostly conservative. Its just that a few swing states are centered more towards the moderate right than the moderate left. Remember, Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Democrats, although narrowly, took control of congress in 2006.

But if you add in the fact that Bush was widely unpopular and still won means that the country is likely more conservative.

No, the country has alot of divided people. The younger generation is decidedly more liberal than the older generation. Though the younger generation is less likely to be registered to vote. My parents are liberal in every social aspect, but for some reason vote Republican. They say because they're conservative fiscally, but with Bush, the money has flown out the window faster than ever before. I think when you look at it, neither conservatives nor liberals handle money better than the other, they just find different ways to blow it. Even if I wasn't fiscally liberal as well as socially, I'd vote Dem because I feel overall that money isn't that important to me.

As for me, I currently like Obama though I don't know if he's got the necessary experience. I'll most likely vote Dem, but no guarantees. And if I'd have to say who I think would make the best president (regardless of my political affiliation), I'd say Mitt Romney. He's the only major candidate that was a state governor, and that's alot more than being a Senator.

My biggest concerns for a President. They understand separation of powers. They put civil rights ahead of religious views. They don't start wars for no reason. They don't have the incarnation of evil on this planet be their Vice President. They spend money intelligently (or compromise with Congress to make sure such). They put the country ahead of the party.