Ahem. We are going to win the Presidency in 2008

It doesnt matter who we nominate so long as it is a decent, rational candidate. One of the "top tier" and most of "tier two"


Why?

Hundreds of thousands of criminals are now allowed to vote in Florida. They go Democratic at >90%. Gee, Florida painted blue seems upcoming.

Ohio is ours for us as long as we remain the party of labor and economic populism.

Colorado is going bluer and bluer and bluer.

No way New Mexico is going red now that the Republicans have made asses of themselves to the hispanic population

So we got the NORTHEAST (Ivory Tower Liberal Elite), WEST COAST (Free-Living, Carefree Liberal Lovers and Techies), MIDWEST (Progressivism and populist labor), AND NEW MEXICO + (Florida maybe) + OHIO.


Pretty solid win for President Hillary Rodham Clinton, ay? :bounce:


~M

sorry, she is just way below #1 in my book.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1018564&mesg_id=1018564

Both Clinton and Edwards have big image problems, and while people like Obama, his relative inexperince is a big problam as well.

said that they would vote for Obama despite his so called inexperience.
and the experience thing is a strawman. the man has 8 years in the state senate and almost 3 in the uS.
clinton and Edwards have 6.

People here simply don't want to believe this.

I didn't have a focus group to back up my impressions based on my discussions with clients and friends, neighbors and co-workers, so when I'd point this out, people would say I didn't know what I was talking about.

I read about this focus group here yesterday and their impresssions MIRROR EXACTLY what I'm hearing from those who surround me, vindicating my opinions.

I don't live in a blue bubble like a lot of DUers. I happen to live in a blue city in a red county in a purple state (we have a Dem state government, mixed on US reps and two Republican US senators) so I hear opinions that aren't exactly those sanctioned by the DNC.

Between the weaknesses of our front runners and the mounting evidence of the rethug vote-stealing ability, I am not about to allow the idea that 2008 is a lock go unchallenged.

What about war?

Who's going to change that? Not moderate or humanize it. Stop it. Break with the idiot policies of decades that culminated in Bush's excess.

There's more to politics than labor & economic populism. It's the Presidency, for fuck's sake, not some hick governorship.

This is not the Democrats war. This is not Kerry's war or Clinton's or Obama's or Edwards' or even Lieberman's. This is Bush's war and our candidates represent more than one single issue. EVERY democrat will end this war. NO Republican will end this war. (well, one that is electable, anyway. one that isnt batshit insane).

The best way to break these policies are elect a democrat, any democrat, to single that this is NOT OUR (America's) war.


M

May 1996. 60 Minutes interviews a Democrat-appointed Secretary of State on sanctions against Iraq:


This isn't just Bush's war. Bush took the onslaught against Iraq a big step further. He completed the war by slow strangulation that a Democrat White House had happily inherited from Poppy and continued in its own name.

Any Democrat isn't good enough, at least until the primaries are through. Americans have the right to a real choice. Democrats have the right to repudiate the policies that legitimized Bush's war. Progressives have a duty to ask who's going to make the difference.

This is important to remember.

The Republicans have committed many atrocities and are destroying the Constitution, but I can not be complacent in the candidate I choose from the Democratic Party.

But is there a reason you're using insulting cultural stereotypes to depict half of the Democratic coalition?

And that whole "criminals are allowed to vote" thing...Can we change that to "African Americans with bogus felony convictions based on the bigoted prosecutions, racist 'three strikes' laws and, in all liklihood, blatant evidence tampering are having their unfairly stolen voting rights restored?"

I'm not sure whether you're with us or taunting us here.

... with you in mostest puzzlement.

people either are too stupid to pay attention, or are eager to promote the whole concept that democratic voters are primarily criminals, etc etc... not worthy of being allowed to vote.

:shrug:

Our Gay Communist Judeo-Islamist agenda.

Let's not forget they have Diebold, ES&S, the US Attorneys in place, caging lists and dirty tricks up their sleeve. Couple all that with a polarizing, divisive candidate and we have a recipe for disaster. This election should be a shoe-in for us but we can really fuck it up if we nominate the wrong candidate.

This cycle's version of the Swift Boat liars will be out in full force.

I hope this time our candidate will have the wisdom to not put up with that bullcrap.

Bring it on:spank:

It's not that Kerry didn't fight back, he did, it's just that they waited so long and never came back as hard with the facts. And of course the Corporate Media was very compliant both with the coverage and non-coverage. The Swifties should have been exposed for the liars they were posthaste and laughed off the stage.

And correct me if I'm wrong but I think Florida switched to paper ballots.

How can she possibly overcome such high negatives?
It will take more than disapproval of the current pResident.

I agree that the Everything-Except-the-South Policy is the only way to go if she IS the candidate. No nothern Democrat has picked up a single Southern state since 1968.
Might be the best policy anyway -- we only got 126 electoral votes from the entire Confederacy in the last *7* Presidential elections put together!

We absolutely cannot lose. The Republicans should save their money and not even run anyone in 2008. They should spend the time purging their party of pedophiles--things like that.

We can still lose 2008 if we are stupid.
Which we have been for some time now.

Been tuning in to Faux News lately. Check it out. The Rs aren't rolling over and apparently aren't above saying or doing whatever it takes to win.

This will be a battle royale in the general but I do believe the Dems will prevail.

If he gets the nomination, he will appear as the "Anti-Bush" articulate, handsome, competent and reasonable. He will also be able to use the "Terror" issue to great effect because unless the Democrats have the good sense to nominate someone who had no role in getting us into Iraq, our candidate will tie herself or himself in knots trying to explain how they voted for the war before they voted against it.

Americans love their fairy tales just like anyone else. They want to hear about how a new president will keep them safe and also make it possible for them to get rich. Mitt Romney will tell them those stories.

There are likely prayer groups all over the south, preparing their Jack Chick tracts as we speak. They will protect America from the evil Mormom guy who wants to take over and lead us all to hell!

Think I am exaggerating? Go to http://www.chick.com/ and search for Mormon. These guys are going to really make a killing this election season, as long as Romney stays in.

Democratic criminals is not comforting.

and I guess other posters have sort of said it, but not in this way.

People in this country often say they want Democrats to lead, but then still vote for a Republican candidate because they don't like the particular Democrat running.

So, regardless of the fact that most Americans trust Democrats more on health care and Iraq, on labor and immigration, it means nothing if we don't pick the right candidate.

We need a candidate with experience, preferrably executive/leadership experience and not so much political expereince that he/she is seen as a "Washington Insider." The candidate must also have charisma - an ability to make a connection with people. Furthermore, the candidate must project an aura of strength and leadership. We need some one who seems like a regular person, while still being informed/educated about the issues. It may not be the best way to pick a president, but it is what most Americans do.

NONE of our candidates fit the bill. Clinton - no charisma, seen as insider. Obama - insufficient experience. Edwards - not an ordinary guy. Richardson - see Clinton - just not as much. Biden - insider. Dodd - no charisma. Kucinich - no aura of strength, Gravel - not likeable.

I'm not saying these things are true, just that it is people's perception and this is BEFORE our candidate being swift-boated. We have a lot of work to do if we are going to win in 2008.

See post #4.

The country needs a Dem president in 2008. Clinton is the Republicans' best chance to keep that from happening. She is selfish, vain, and mediocre. She doesn't seem to care that she is going to screw up the whole world this time instead of just America's chance for national health care. As with health care in the early 90's, put Hillary on the case for the 2008 presidency, and you can kiss the presidency goodbye.

She even screws up our chance for a female president. What qualified female candidates are out there right now but unable to get into the race because Hillary is supposedly "the" female candidate? How long will it be after Hillary blows our "sure thing" until another female candidate is nominated?

Ahem. That's wrong. I assume you are talking about the fact that many ex-convicts in Florida will be able to get their right to vote back after they pay their debt to society -- only nonviolent offenders, BTW. The "criminals get to vote" stuff is a RWTP.

I think this is a troll trying to screw with us.

the DLC might "win"

the status quo will win

We need to work harder than ever. The GOP Election Theft Machine will be firing on all eight carbon-emitting cylinders.

NGU.

On second thought, keep it, I prefer reality based thinking, thank you very much.

First of all, the Dems, at least for now, face two huge hurdles. The first is the war. With their vote to enable the ongoing occupation of Iraq, the Dems just insured that the coalition of anti-war moderates and liberals will, for the most part, leave the party in '08. The anti-war moderates, independents and 'Pugs will most likely vote 'Pug in '08. The anti-war left will either go Green or stay home on election day, leaving the DLC, corporatist center to try and pull of an election, and they simply don't have the numbers. The only solution for this is if the Dems can end the war by election day, and given their current trend, that is highly doubtful.

Second, if Thompson jumps in the race, we're in a world of trouble. Don't be so quick to jump on the laughing bandwagon around here. Thompson has the experience and charisma to pick up the Reagan mantle, and the credentials to pull all of the right to him. He is going to be a formidable opponent no matter who we nominate, perhaps an unbeatable one.

And if we put Hillary out there, well that's a train wreck waiting to happen. Sure, she's the corporate/centerist favorite, but that's the only people who favor her. The rest despise her, and if she gets the nod, that will insure that the right will be out in force to slap her down.

Put away the pipe, take off the rose colored glasses and look at reality. It isn't pretty.