What will the Democrats have to do to win in 2008?

[Siddhartha]

What strategies do you expect to see from the Democrats in the next 12 months to win the White House and more seats in Congress?

Do you think it is enough for them to run against George W Bush?

Please avoid the standard ATP&N lefties vs righties bashing cliches.

 

[Capitalizt]

Breathe.

 

[Red Dawn]

That and pointing out that the Republican nominee, 9/11, isn't suitable to run the country.

 

[techs]

There is a substantial portion of the electorate who are swayed by the general "feelings" they have about how things are going in the country. They tune out political ads and issues. The feeling right now is awful so unless something absolutely major happens this 10 percent swing vote will go 80 percent Democratic.
So unless Hillary is found in bed with Osama Bin Laden she's a shoe in.

 

[bamacre]

They have it already. The number of people in this country that consider themselves Republicans dropped from, IIRC, 37% down to 25%.

If Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate, it is even worse for the Republicans.

The Democrats can only lose in '08 if they totally fuck up, and it would have to be pretty bad. I am thinking it would take Hillary doing a "britney getting out of the limo" act and all of America sees her Johnson.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ many of Paul's supporters are actually Democrats. Most Republicans want nothing to do with the guy.

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't think it will be as easy as you guys are trying to make it look.

Look at what happened to Hillary after that recent debate. Her numbers took a dive.

Now imagine what happens when the Republicans start to go after her none stop for 2 or 3 months in a row.

If the Democrats didn't have Hillary at the top of the ticket they would walk away with the race, but Hillary hurts them far more than she helps them.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ many of Paul's supporters are actually Democrats. Most Republicans want nothing to do with the guy.

I don't agree with that. I'd like to see the numbers.

But mainly, he'd take a lot of independent votes away from the Republicans. Hillary is hated by many, but so is the Iraq war, and so is government spending. Paul is another "voting against Hillary" option.

I agree with your other post, I think the Democrats will do better with Obama, I think he's very electable, almost in the same way Bill was when he ran against Bush Sr.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ many of Paul's supporters are actually Democrats. Most Republicans want nothing to do with the guy.

Do you have a link that supports this statement?

 

[blackangst1]

It's gonna be an "Anything but a Republican" election. lol those have always been succesful.

Voters, including some on this board, havent a fucking clue who they are supporting. They selectively acknowledsge what they want and ignore the rest. At least admit there are flaws and what they are. There isnt a candidate that coincides with all my beliefs and I suspect the same is true of most people. You have to decide whats the most important. And seeing how NONE of the candidates on either side is going to actually do anything with the war other than the current course, you all are delusional.

This is gonna be a fun election. Finger pointing and deflection. And the American people will accept it as OK. Stupid ass people.

 

[Jhhnn]

What do Dems have to do to win?

Mostly not fall on their swords...

This election is about promises not kept, about lies, deception and looting on the rightwing, and about a certain righteous indignation among the electorate that they're tired of falling for the same ol' snakeoil peddler routine...

Blackangst1's assertions as to the war are fallacious- Dems must find a way out over the 2009-2010 time period or they'll lose much of their support, risk losing the 2010 midterms and the 2012 election as well. That's very straightforward, and utterly obvious....

 

[senseamp]

Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

Only the noble stay the course.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

Only the noble stay the course.

LOL, are you saying that Shit for Brains is noble?:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I don't think it will be as easy as you guys are trying to make it look.

Look at what happened to Hillary after that recent debate. Her numbers took a dive.

Now imagine what happens when the Republicans start to go after her none stop for 2 or 3 months in a row.

If the Democrats didn't have Hillary at the top of the ticket they would walk away with the race, but Hillary hurts them far more than she helps them.

First of all her numbers didn't exactly take a "dive". That's an exaggeration. Secondly you can't equate primaries with the general election. They are two very very different types of campaigns targeting very very different types of voters. In addition the field is made up of candidates that are very different then what the general election would see as well. (in relation to individual primary voters). There's a reason why a 5 point drop in a primary is bad news, and a 5 point drop in a general election is a catastrophe.

The Democratic party is pretty unified behind Hillary. Nationally she has been trending upward and is approaching 50% support before the first primary vote has been cast. For a non incumbant that is an absolutely dominating lead. On the other hand, Giuliani has barely cracked the 30% mark nationally. If you examine electoral trends over the last 100 years you will see this is EXTREMELY bad news for the GOP.

Here's some interesting reading on it from a journal, and while this is of course trend analysis and prediction... using this model he predicted the 2004 election pretty accurately.

EDIT: Whoops, forgot the link

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

Only the noble stay the course.

LOL, are you saying that Shit for Brains is noble?:roll:

It is in the Sh!t for Brains GOP base

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

Only the noble stay the course.

LOL, are you saying that Shit for Brains is noble?:roll:

Some people have convictions, and principles that they are wont to stray from.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

Only the noble stay the course.

LOL, are you saying that Shit for Brains is noble?:roll:

Some people have convictions, and principles that they are wont to stray from.

There is no nobility in being firmly stuck on stupid, IMO. Although the nobility of old was often that way, so by that definition of "nobility", maybe you are right.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's hysterical, Nebor, claiming that those who support the most unprincipled admin in modern history do so because of... principles...

That's just twisted, in ways that only the hypnotized could even begin to swallow...

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
^ many of Paul's supporters are actually Democrats.

this is only true when it comes to online voting polls. when it comes to the actual ballot box, dems arent' willing to put their money where their mouth is, and they'll just vote the party line

 

[Jaskalas]

If you?re done personally assaulting Nebor,

To win the election all the Dems have to do is paint a pretty picture of what the future and handouts could look like ? if only we handed them further control of the government. Things like ?free? healthcare, ?free? this, ?free? that all seem to garner votes. Tell the people money grows on tress, and the election is yours.

When you promise to build government bigger ?for the people?, they will follow that vision.

If all you do is repeat last election?s ?anyone but Bush?, it might ring louder than before but you?ve already won a midterm election and Bush is no longer running. A negative campaign will further polarize and serve to drive people away.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, Run against Bush. Let Republicans choose if they want to defend Bush's record and go down with the sinking ship or try to distance themselves from Bush and alienate Bush fans in their base.

Only the noble stay the course.

Nah, frequently the stupid stay the course too. I guess those two aren't mutually exclusive though. There is nothing particularly noble about bashing your face into the wall just because you've been doing it for so long already.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If you?re done personally assaulting Nebor,

To win the election all the Dems have to do is paint a pretty picture of what the future and handouts could look like ? if only we handed them further control of the government. Things like ?free? healthcare, ?free? this, ?free? that all seem to garner votes. Tell the people money grows on tress, and the election is yours.

When you promise to build government bigger ?for the people?, they will follow that vision.

If all you do is repeat last election?s ?anyone but Bush?, it might ring louder than before but you?ve already won a midterm election and Bush is no longer running. A negative campaign will further polarize and serve to drive people away.

The Democrats don't tell people money grows on trees. That's what Republicans do. Where is the money to pay for Iraq war and Medicare expansion coming from?
The Democrats make no secret that if the voters want these programs, taxes will need to be raised so that the budget will be balanced. So your choice is between a party that will spend more and ask for more taxes to pay for it, and a party that will spend more and pass the taxes on to the future generations to pay off. I would rather take taxation with representation, than saddle some poor sap living 20 years from now with taxes for spending from which he drew no benefit and had no vote. That's the moral thing to do, IMO, but what do I know about morals, I am an atheist.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would rather take taxation with representation, than saddle some poor sap living 20 years from now with taxes for spending from which he drew no benefit and had no vote. That's the moral thing to do, IMO, but what do I know about morals, I am an atheist.

I fail to see how giving the government more money is "the moral thing to do."

Forcing people to give through means of taxes is not moral. People giving to others less fortunate via charity is moral.

Thinking that either party is moral is simply moronic.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: senseamp
I would rather take taxation with representation, than saddle some poor sap living 20 years from now with taxes for spending from which he drew no benefit and had no vote. That's the moral thing to do, IMO, but what do I know about morals, I am an atheist.

I fail to see how giving the government more money is "the moral thing to do."

Forcing people to give through means of taxes is not moral. People giving to others less fortunate via charity is moral.

Thinking that either party is moral is simply moronic.

Between taxing and spending and borrowing and spending, taxing and spending is infinitely more moral. Because you can argue about how much spending is right, but it's hard to argue that those who have a vote in the spending should be passing the cost of that spending to people who don't have a vote in it. It's called taking responsibility for the government you vote to elect. You get a vote, the future generations who pick up the tab for all this spending don't.
If Republicans were to cut spending and taxes together, then they would have some claim to be moral. But spending on current generation and taxing future generations to pay for it is nothing more than stealing from your kids. If you left thousands of dollars of personal debts to your children to pay off, you would be an immoral person. This is no different.