This is why Democrats will lose in '08

[Arkaign]

The only Republicans I would support are Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel. The rest of them are a bunch of corrupt sycophant jerkoffs.

With the Republican candidate field being so terrible, (Ron Paul/Hagel would never get the nomination) I really don't see how the Democrats can lose in '08, unless they nominate Kerry.

 

[Alistar7]

Deudalus - Maybe our past 4 Presidents shouldn't all be named Bush or Clinton?

Could be our next 4 as well, Hillary, then Jeb. Imagine, 36 years in a row, 5 Presidents named either Bush or Clinton. I think 20 years has been enough....


I would expect both parties to run back to the middle for the big race, as usual.

As the voter demographics swing and woman/minorities comprise a larger and larger % of voters; I think the GOP is going to have to reposition themselves on some issues or get smoked for years to come. Immigration reform would be the most logical choice, considering the gains they established last election within the US Spanish community.

 

[Lemon law]

The somewhat myth implicit is that we pick our Presidents because of their positions on issues. When in fact its more on image than on substance. Who do we like, who is the better liar, and we hardly even bother to track their campaign pledges.

In MHO, the election of 2000 was won because the American people liked GWB better than wooden Al. And in 2004, Kerry never connected with the American people---Even though all the disquieting signs of a failed GWB Presidency were present in 11/04, its still boiled down to the devil they knew vs. the devil they did not. And this somewhat borne out when GWB tried to spend his post 04 election political capital by monkeying with social security,
and the resulting firestorm of American distrust soon sent him fleeing. And now, GWB would have a hard time being elected dog catcher even if he ran against Leona Hemsley.

And I see no reason to assume that the election of 08 will be won on anything other than image and pie in the sky promises. Looking at both the democratic and republican fields is somewhat like viewing a blighted and dreary landscape.

But in someways---we might see Mitt Romney emerge as the man who totally reinvented himself win on the Republican side---how can you beat the incredible plastic man able to be
all things to all people----a man able to erase his past record at the speed of light has to have a future in the image game.

And the dems may end up with Obama---simply because he is the man who refuses to define himself lest he dent his charisma.

But its way too early to tell yet----too many events will happen---and the candidates will have to waste must time spinning their wheels demonstrating they predicted it first and were right all along. ----and for some of the 08 field----the events will stretch their credibility beyond the breaking point.

Above all, plasticity will be an asset in 08.

 

[sweetpea70512]

Many of these statements have been taken out of context and of course they don't make sense if you don't know what proceeded them....as for the number of post having anything to do with how smart you are I am not stupid, The $5.00 a gallon price on gas is coming, he's just a little off on his time frame. The corporations are taking over this country to the detriment of the little man. And most of the people on this forum don't know what sarcasm is. I am sure he appreciates you pulling out some of his best one-liners.🙂

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Lemon lawThe somewhat myth implicit is that we pick our Presidents because of their positions on issues. When in fact its more on image than on substance. Who do we like, who is the better liar, and we hardly even bother to track their campaign pledges.

In MHO, the election of 2000 was won because the American people liked GWB better than wooden Al. And in 2004, Kerry never connected with the American people---Even though all the disquieting signs of a failed GWB Presidency were present in 11/04, its still boiled down to the devil they knew vs. the devil they did not. And this somewhat borne out when GWB tried to spend his post 04 election political capital by monkeying with social security,
and the resulting firestorm of American distrust soon sent him fleeing. And now, GWB would have a hard time being elected dog catcher even if he ran against Leona Hemsley.

And I see no reason to assume that the election of 08 will be won on anything other than image and pie in the sky promises. Looking at both the democratic and republican fields is somewhat like viewing a blighted and dreary landscape.

But in someways---we might see Mitt Romney emerge as the man who totally reinvented himself win on the Republican side---how can you beat the incredible plastic man able to be
all things to all people----a man able to erase his past record at the speed of light has to have a future in the image game.

And the dems may end up with Obama---simply because he is the man who refuses to define himself lest he dent his charisma.

But its way too early to tell yet----too many events will happen---and the candidates will have to waste must time spinning their wheels demonstrating they predicted it first and were right all along. ----and for some of the 08 field----the events will stretch their credibility beyond the breaking point.

Above all, plasticity will be an asset in 08.

Again with anti GWB rants and senseless drivel? Even records have two sides.

Presidents are picked based on appeal to represent their party position on the issues. Their position on the issues makes up their base, with appeal having far more influence on the middle of the political spectrum.

It is not a myth implicit, it is reality. It is history, it happened in this instance and many times beforehand. Entire regions of the country have been courted and swapped from one party to the other, such as the south.

In the recent case of the Spanish voters they "liked" being reached out to by the GOP and responded at the polls. However the current GOP stance on immigration reform could go a long way in alienating them back into the democratic camp.

The demographics of this country are changing, with woman and minorities together overtaking a majority in the electorate. If the GOP hopes to contend in the future they will need to pull part of that majority on a consistent basis.

This election will be a win/lose for all the American people. GWB will be removed from office, we all win. A democrat or republican will still hold presidential power, we all lose.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: Deudalus
I decided to dig up some of Dave's most enlightened and deep critical thought inspired posts on these forums. Here's afew of his wonderfully complex thoughts:

These are his entire unedited posts by the way. I'm not cutting anything out.

Oh they feel alright. The texture of green in their pockets from destroying the planet.

You would never vote for a Democrat if your life depended on it.

Waste of a post.

Bolded for truth.

It is the ultimate irresposibility of U.S. Corporations that we for some reason allow to continue.

They are rewarded for incompetence on purpose for profit.

But but but this is the fantastic economy Republicans in here insists is the greatest ever.

The house of borrowing cards the Repubs set up?

Of course the crash will all be the Dems fault since they are in control now.

This can't be according to the resident Republicans.

Oh that's right, it's all the Democrats fault.

This seems to be the most efficient way to become an "intellectual elite member" sweetpea.

I don't think your point of view of "the more posts you have the smarter you are" holds water.

Unless I'm missing something here, this seems to be a blatant flame.

Sure looks like a flame attempt but he grabbed some of my best one liner responses.

Thanks Deudalus :thumbsup:

 

[csteggo]

• Politics is funny in the way that the more exacting a candidate is on a particular position the less likely they will get voted for. This is a base theory given in an introductory political science course. What you see now is politicians pandering to those people that do the actually voting at the primary election. Those people tend to the more extreme views. After the primary the candidates will gravitate more toward center.

• Reading through most of the OP's idea of what a democrat is, I wouldn't vote for one either. Then again I dont believe that voting for a democrat means that you neccessarily espouse those ideals. I cant think of one democrat that doesn't claim to be a person of faith. On the other hand I do believe that most of them are firm believers of a separation of church and state. When it comes to trying to show that democrats are such peace activists that they cant be counted on for national security really has no idea what past presidents have actually done and who has gone to war. That belief I think stems from the fact that most democrats think we went to the wrong war.

• Hillary and Obama may have their issues when it comes to getting elected but on the other end of the spectrum the republican candidates are in a a sorry state. Gulliani has difficulty making intelligent decisions to protect his city (emergency response from the biggest terroist target, not properly equipping his cities firemen with working radios). Is that a person that you safely want running our country. McCain a staunch and seemingly delusional support for the war (delusional in the way that he believes it to be a safe place and that the war is going swimmingly). Of course there is Fred Thompson who as a lot of people dont seem to know was a big defender of Nixon. I wont even go into what candidates dont believe in evolution. I dont know why people cant believe in theory with an incredible amount of evidence backing it up, and God at the same time. Creationism is based on faith, evolution is based on fact. Any candidate that does not believe in evolution based on scientific fact seems woefully ignorant. I wish there was a viable conservative candidate that could be elected. (I like alot of Ron Pauls ideas but would not make it through the primary)