Unless they nominate Giuliani, there is NO WAY the pukes can win in '08

And they won't nominate Giuliani because of his pro-choice and pro-gun control stance, which makes him "not a team player" in Karl Rove's book.
The reason for this is that by the end of 4 more years, the American public will be disgusted with Bush as they were with Lyndon Johnson. They will by crying out for moderation, and we Democrats will be the ones who provide it, not any candidate of Rove's choosing. Thoughts?

Anyone out there?

pass an election accountability bill...and fast!

When they are a minority in congress.

The time to address this was BEFORE the republicans controlled everything. Unfortunately we were sleeping at the wheel.

consider the alternative.

this was the election that was the test.

the elections are RIGGED.

it won't matter if the dems put out Jesus H Christ as the candidate.
the Neo Facists will put out Satan and he will get "elected".

He's a little sketchy in the "moral values" dept. :)

and he is about as Rovian as they get. His "country doctor" image will be a plus, but it won't help him.

all it takes is marketing

When I asked her why Gore was not blowing Bush out of the water in 2000 (I was 13 at the time), she said that after 8 years of one party, sometimes people just want a change and there isn't anything to do about it. Hopefully the desire for change will win it for us in 2008, if nothing else.

Is Jeb not up for 2008?

And if Jeb was up for president next, then what else is he up for?

and voter intimidation no doubt

Which will work to our favor in 2008. :evilgrin:

Your mother has probably been around for a while. These things go in cycles, and even though I'm depressed to the MAX, I do understand this logic!

I'm a "boomer" and probably older than your mother, but sometimes this is just the cold REALITY of the whole ball of wax!

Bush is going to make Johnson look like a Saint. And it was the Johnson election that was to be my very FIRST time to get to vote, and I refused to vote for him. I was a Democrat living in Texas back then and just couldn't do it. But he did win... by a landslide!

Also, remember Nixon won by a landslide, no controversy about who won and look what happened to him?? I keep telling my "impatient" daughter... these things take time!

However, I STILL want to PROTEST in D.C. even if it won't change anything, for me it's a matter of PRINCIPAL!

You know, that last line of you're post does not look too bad... "protect in D.C.," sadly though, you're correct. It won't change a fr($$%*(ed thing. Like you, it's a matter of principal, but another part of your post I'll hang-on too (trying but soooo depressed) is that "these things take time."

How long, huh? Soon? This is a mess and if it were not for places like this where I can sound off, I'd probably not want to see the light of day right now. Thanks all for giving me a place to hang out.

now i take paxil! You guys are smart!

We will win by default in 2008 or 2012 because the American people get bored. Look at history other than FDR (And that was because of depression and WWII) parties only serve 2 or 3 terms before they are kicked out to try something new.

What hurt us in this election as far as Congress goes was so many southern Dems retiring. Had they not then the majority would not be very signifigant. We can win those seats back and others pretty easily if we work to get our message out and not become the party that is just a little less Republican than the Republicans..

Which is what happened in the election of 1964, where the conservative movement really got off the ground.

How quaint.

Negitivity is just self-destructive.

Until the voting problems get ironed out, there will not be another Democratic President.

for the next 4 years, then.

Just a suggestion.

My point is that we should be optomistic until we know for sure that the country is turning towards fascism, not just wring our hands and be doomsday prophets.

What else has to happen to convince you? I don't think we can wait for more signs, it may be too late if we do. Let's fix it. That's not wringing our hands, it's facing reality and working toward change.

and not just being negative for the sake of being negative, then we have an agreement.

;-)

on this before the last election, and as a result, my state legislature is now Dem for the first time in 40 years!

...do everything you can to fix voter fraud.

n/t

we shouldn't be doomsday-sayers until we know nothing can be done.

is not being doomsday-sayers or saying nothing can be done. But if we don't fix BBV then anything else we do will be for naught.

we can do both. I read your original post as saying that once the country gets sick of Bush & Co. our problems would be solved. I just put the highest priority on fixing voter fraud, without that the rest means nothing.

until the "voting problems" get sorted out, we'll never have another fair election. But I fully expect some "Democrats" to be the beneficiaries of Diebold and SVS and the like.

They will steal elections as long as the process remains so completely screwed up.

There must be paper ballots with serial numbers on them. Each ballot must belong to a single voter.

And I suggest that the ballot have pictures of the candidates that can be marked with an "X".

Just like they have in the under-developed countries.

But then we have the counting of the ballots. I haven't figured that out yet.

I do remember what Joseph Stalin said:

"It's not the voters, it's the vote-counters!"

They control the voting process and if they are allowed to continue stealing elections it won't matter who they have running. Our votes are irrelevant under these conditions.

Go ahead and be negative, but it hurts you more than it helps.

It won't matter who we nominate or whether the people get sick of Bush & Co. if we don't fix voter fraud. I'm positive - positive that either we fix it or face more of the same or worse. Facing the truth doesn't hurt me or us. Not facing the truth is what will hurt us.

wring our hands about losing every election until we know it can't be fixed.

personally I'd like to see a voting boycott until they have fair, transparent, verifiable, elections with a non-partisan body oversseing them at state and local levels. No Diebold or ES&S voting equipment and uniform election laws across the nation.

lived with gays after he separated from his wife? Seems to me that the mere mention of "homosexual," "gay," "lesbian," "same-sex" sends them screaming to them thar hills.

They'd vote for a Wallace-like candidate and hand us the election.

OK, OK, so they don't control ALL the voting machines. OK, OK, so it won't matter who the Dems put up because they won't be able to perform COMPLETE character assassination upon them this time like they did Kerry, only about 96%, OK, OK, they won't raise 700 million dollars, they'll only rasie 675 million....

Get the point...?

They're already planning the 08 selection...you just haven't been told who it is, how they plan to do it yet.

Who knows, it may be Bush Sr. He didn't serve two terms now did he? The joke's gonna be on us and the draftees...

This would destroy their Southern strategy. I believe they used Rudy to keep us off balance in the blueish states.

till they fix BBV, its gonna be Ahrnold.
Voting is the key, if we can fix the paperless trail voting, we MIGHT have a chance. Next time, dont nominate a quitter ass-clown bonesman for dems.

I don't have all that many problems with Arnold..

He is a social democrat, which is why I think even if our 225 year old constitution was changed for him he wouldn't win anyway.

What a choice that would be for Republicans.. their candidate who belives in abortion, stem cell research and gay rights OR the Democratic candidate that is exactly the same thing. How would O'Reilly and the christian right support him without blundering all over themselves? "Well.. umm.. uh.. we kind of told you that liberals were bad because they wanted gay rights and were pro-choice.. umm *cough* but so is our candidate this year so we think its okay to think like that now, in 8 years we'll be back with our regular scheduled bullshit."

And I see it as a possibility. While he is, in many ways, an empty suit, isn't that just the kind of guy the repubs want? Someone they can shape and mold?

He's from Virginia, the son of the former football coach. While there's been some rumblings about a few ..... uh ..... racist pranks while he was in HS in California, he probably could be made into a viable candidate.

And he's waaaaaay more charismatic (in a , smiley, smarmy, nazi-esque sorta way) than Frist.

Just a thought .......

I had thought Romney but someone pointed out he is pro-choice. I think of them as the smae type of person, just like B$$$ the baseball owner, good old boy. I think it will depend on whether or not Allen is pure enough. Since he is in charge of the Rethug Senate campaign he is probably vetted. The only question then woul d be if they would want to look outside the Senate.

His father starting coaching in Iowa at Morningside College. Went on to the Redsk-ns and the SuperBowl.

I heard Jr had a spitton (sp?) where he would spit his chew in his senate office. Yep, he is a definite possiblity for the R nomination.

There is a particular type of Repug, usually from the South, but not always, that fits this description.

Trent Lott was the founder & prototype.

Bill Frist & George Allen are the updated models.

They make my skin crawl.

Many of Kerry's negatives from this year would be negative (and similar principles could apply to other potential nominees):

We'd have the more religious candidate

We'd have the candidate with less in his past to alienate the so called values voters (until the right wing noise machine rewrites both their pasts)

No Eastern elitist attacks would no longer apply to just the Democrat

If all else failed and we lost, we'd still be much better off than we are under Shrub

They will nominate Frist.

:kick:

1. McCain -- will get taken out by the reprise of 2000 slander
2. Giuliani -- will get taken out by the taliban branch of the GOP.
3. Frist -- will not be viable after we hit 100 million uninsured and after the next 3 vioxx scandals hit with nothing done about them (we've been averaging one a year).
4. DeLay -- Can't run from prison.
5. Karl Rove -- who will be terminated with prejudice by former CIA operatives in mid campaign.

Conclusion, the next president will be The last man standing -- the last minute draft of Dennis Hastert. It doesn't matter who the Dems run, they will be punked again at the ballot box, and we will just look on and wring our hands.

Ugh! Dennis Hastert?

thought George W. Bush* would have any chance of getting the nomination, much less end up in the WH?

I made him a 5-3 dog to win the presidency...

Most speculation after '96 focused on him. In his '98 reelection, he openly acknowledged thinking about running for President.

It was NOT a surprise.

But, the GOP is far more establishment - you can usually pick out a candidate that they will nominate. The Democrats almost never nominate the person they people speculate they'll nominate. The exception was (sort of) Kerry this year, but even there, most speculation had focused on Al Gore, and then after Kerry's brief frontrunnership it became Dean.

Basically, Dem primaries are completely unpredictable, Republican ones are very top-down, very easy to predict.

'08's harder, but I stick with my Frist prediction.

And they will, unless we out them this time.

enough Repubs will be able to see what is happening. Will they be satisfied with the huge deficit we have? Will they be satisfied if their children are sent to Iraq, or God forbid Iran? Will they see that Repubs have such control over us that they will rebel? If a "godly" man is the nominee we are still in the crapper.

and his cult will not be able to keep his legacy alive, with Bush being a lame duck.

I can't DISLIKE McCain, but McCain will be 72 years old in '08! Plus he has other problems within the Republican Party. Too bad he decided to stick so close to Bush. And I think it was only because he wanted to run in '08. But as heard on C-Span Today, out of the last 54 Senators who have run for President... the RECORD... 0 for 54!!

Repukes, do have a PROBLEM with Guilianni... when he left his wife, he went to live with 2 Gay men. Don't get me wrong, I DON'T take issue with that, but THEY DO!

they dont plan on leaving. if not him, then chenney.
tib

He can't win on values (his own baggage is too public) and 4 years from now 9/11 will have lost the luster it brought to HIS career. Without his city being attacked he'd already be a cypher. He's a bottom feeder and he'll have zero national appeal. Mark it.

Rudy, despite being pro-gun control, is lauded by many for 'cleaning up New York' and is very popular. Republicans often tend to ignore values things in their own pasts as "youthful indescretions" Heck, Rudy could be having another affair today and since it occurred before he officially announced his candidacy, it's still youthful in Republican thinking.

The 68 race was a cliffhanger...


Look at 76.... Watergate and Inflation should have cooked the Pugs and Carter won by the skin of his teeth...

This is a deeply divided country...


I expect a lot more close elections..

by the way middle America isn't ready to embrace a cross dressing presidential candidate who married his first cousin and got thrown out of his home by his second wife for having an affair with his communications director and then moving in with his two gay friends...

The dude makes Clinton look like a monk...

I don't see how they could win with Rudy after his craven affair while still in office. OF course, let's never underestimate the Repukes' penchant for hypocrisy; GWB* was a draft dodger, yet he ran as practically a "veteran." (!)

Bush is finished in Florida in 06...He recently said he hasn't ruled out the possibility of running in 08...all they have to do is use Diebold mechanics again and Jeb will win just like his bother did in 2000 and 2004..sad to say...no-ones doing nothing to get rid of Diebold machines...we'll always have "rigged elections".

Despite the right wing noise machine and a corporate-cia infested media we should have had a liberal east-wing democrat as president elect after a TWO WAY race against a wartime incumbent. That means Bush's policies are highly unpopular no matter how its spun but the rebugs rank and file still vote their religious wingnuts into Congress and they are zealots who think politics is pure ideology. Unless we can take back the House in 2006 our democracy will have ceased to function by 2008. That's why this vote fraud issue has to be kept boiling.

what the voters actually think will matter in four more years. All elections will be diebolded by then.

I intend to survive one year at a time.

and it's not so the Democrats can win. :(

Speaking the truth!

When are you guys gonna catch on to the junta?
And what's so great about El Duce pray tell? that he blamed the troops for neglecting the explosives in Iraq?

that will make it harder for him to appoint some dick to the scotus.

we didn't even get to see them, Cleland, Mondale flipped the pre-election polls (they "lost" by the same margin they were previously leading). So, VNS said, exit polls were screwy...
Don't you ever wonder, where did W get 11 million voters more than he did in 2000? Must've been all the "hard work"

in 2008; i give it a well over 50% chance. Those who think otherwise must still be thinking that rationality matters the repug voters.

Lots can happen. Too soon to be making statements like that.

Who wouldn't they be able to win with? Even amongst repulbicans, I can think of few less qualified for high office.

and our daily entertainment is watching pigs fly daily until we are blue in the face.

I guess the only other leisurely thing we should be doing is counting our chickens before they hatch.

Were you around for the last two elections?

If they can win with Bush, they can win with ANYONE. He was EASILY the most flawed candidate in modern times.

And besides, the politicans who look to be potential Democratic candidates in 2008 are just as rightwing as almost ALL potential GOP candidates, except for their positions on these minor wedge issues, which seem to be the only issues worth consideration by the corporate media, not coincidentally by most of the people posting here on DU.

Let me count the ways the repubes could win '08.
1. They've perfected stealing the election electronically.
2. The opposition party (us) could nominate Hillary.
3. They could run ANY centrist (ie, McCain)
4. They've perfected stealing the election electronically.

Honestly, IMO I'd say we're pretty much fucked from here on out.

Gyre