Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39
  1. #1
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    In 2000 a Democratic Victory was a near certainty--the economy was only starting to show signs of slowing and breaking out of the .com bubble and for all his blemishes, Bill Clinton was hugely popular. The country was experiencing a peaceful expansion unlike any we'd experienced since the roaring 20s. In comes the 'incumbent' and presumed front runner-Al Gore. Historically a vice president of a popular president wins, George Bush Sr. being the last example. It was Gore's election to lose, and lose it he did, to a guy with character issues from his past and little foreign policy experience.

    In 2004 a Democratic Victory was a near certainty--the economy was fully out of the .com boom and seemed to be floundering around with little direction. The country had abandoned its peace-time prosperity for a period of unpopular war and a seemingly endless quagmire in Iraq with no end in site. The incumbent (George Bush) was unpopular, and was viewed as inept by the opposition (and some in his own party). In comes an experienced statesman from Massachusetts, a well spoken senator with loads of experience in the Senate and his dynamic and well liked running mate, John Kerry and John Edwards. It was there election to lose, and lose it they did.

    In 2008 many are saying a Democratic Victory is a near certainty--the economy is still floundering about, fuel prices are out of control, we're still hanging around in Iraq (although the signs there are improving), and George Bush is even more unpopular than he was in 2004. Add to that the fact that there is no incumbent vice president who will be running and the plethora of only marginally appealing Republican candidates and it would appear as though the Democrats should have it in the bag. My question, however, is what makes everyone so sure they won't screw it up again like they have the last two times? Why should anyone believe that they can get their camp in order enough to pull out the "W" and take back the White House when they've failed twice in a row in elections that they by all rights should have won going away (accusations of election tampering aside, it shouldn't have been close either of the last two elections, the Democrats should have won handily, but let's not go down that road)? Why will this time be any different?

    My predictions?

    If it's Hilary Clinton as the Democratic Nominee forget about it, I don't think she could win against any of the Republican candidates minus Giuliani unless something scandalous comes out. Similarly I think Rudy Giuliani's candidacy is doomed to failure unless he's running against Clinton. If it's Obama or Edwards it becomes more tricky. An Obama or Edwards ticket should beat any Republican campaign easily except John McCain. A McCain candidacy is the wild card because I really think he has the greatest potential for attracting voters of all the Republicans, but he also has the longest history and therefore the longest line of rope on which to hang himself.

    What I want to know, however, is why the Democrats I speak with are so smug and optimistic about this election. Have they already forgotten that they should have won the last two times?
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,156
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    I think there was little to no certainty in 2000 and 2004 compared to this year. I don't think that they should have won the last two times. I mean, evidently, on the basis of their platform (and anyone's elementary sense of reason), they should have won, but it is natural that historical precedent would grant the Republicans a two term presidency after Clinton. Disappointed as I was to see American voters proceed to the ballot box intoxicated by neoconservatism, I didn't think the Democrats had a great shot at the White House.

    Now, however, things sit far more in the Democrats' favour than during the past two elections. People are disgusted with the Republicans, we've endured two terms of mismanagement that have upset even many conservatives, even, and both Democratic frontrunners have a decent chance at the polls. I loved the prelude to one question posed to the Republican candidates one debate: "All of you have been enormous critics of Hillary Clinton. And yet, polls indicate that if the election were held tomorrow, she would beat all of you."
    [CENTER]-=] Starcreator [=-

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    I agree with star...2000 and 2004 bear little resemblence to the 2008 political environment. The Monica Lewinsky scandal tainted the entire Democratic ticket by association. Gore refused to campaign with Clinton, even in Arkansas where Clinton could have done some good (Gore lost Arkansas and Tennessee). In 2004, the 9/11 factor benefited Bush, along with the inept candidacy of John Kerry. Bush was the incumbent president, a wartime president. The edge went to Bush.

    In 2008 you have several factors benefiting the Democrats: a fragile economy, an expensive and unpopular war, memories of Katrina incompetance, the receding importance of 9/11, and an apathetic conservative Republican base. Polls show around 70% of Americans think the nation is heading in the wrong direction. Add to this the recent Democratic congressional gains last year and Republican obstructionism this year and you have the makings of a target rich enviroment for Democratic candidates.

    If none of this convinces you, then just look at the Republicans. How many top Republicans look and sound confident about 2008? Things can change, but you must admit that Democrats have more to smile about now than Republicans.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    There is nothing certain except death and taxes. The Democrats will kill you with taxes - that is certain.

    P.S. The Republican candidates are really lame.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  5. #5
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    I think you guys are seriously discounting the advantages in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats should have had. Star, let's not forget in 1988 Bush Sr. won almost entirely on the record of Reagan. Why didn't Gore carry the same momentum that Bush Sr. did? Clinton, despite the Lewinski affair and other issues, was still hugely popular, and the economy was rockin'. Gore should have won that election.

    I'll agree that 2004 was less sure--9/11 was a cause for Bush, but Manise, most of the things you cited for this year would have applied in 2004 as well. Again, what makes this any different?

    In the end I do think it will come down to the candidates themselves. If McCain gets the Republican nomination you're not going to have a certain victory, IMO. I don't think it's in the bag, but it seems a lot of Democrats sure think so.
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    A lot can happen in a year, in actual events both at home and abroad, and in campaign gaffes like Dean. Anyone who says they know the Democrats will win, or they know the Republicans will win, is foolish.

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique View Post
    I think you guys are seriously discounting the advantages in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats should have had. Star, let's not forget in 1988 Bush Sr. won almost entirely on the record of Reagan. Why didn't Gore carry the same momentum that Bush Sr. did? Clinton, despite the Lewinski affair and other issues, was still hugely popular, and the economy was rockin'. Gore should have won that election.
    Gore, unlike Bush Sr., didn't run on his predecessor's record. Except for the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan ended his second term on a positive note--the fall of the Soviet Union. Bush Sr. easily coopted the Reagan message and ran with it. A little dirty campaigning like the infamous Willie Horton ad didn't hurt either.

    Gore didn't have such an easy transition. While Clinton remained popular, he ended his presidency with controversial pardons of Mark Rich and others, further angering the substantial minority of Americans who absoluted hated the Clinton. Gore had to live down the contant criticism that he was Clinton's yes man, an empty suit without ideas and policies of his own. Embracing Clinton in 2000 had its risks. In hindsight Gore should have done so, but at the time Clinton was toxic in some parts of the country. George Bush, on the other hand, unified his party and stressed themes that highlighted Clinton's failures: integrity, honesty, honor. It was never going to be a cakewalk for Gore.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique View Post
    I'll agree that 2004 was less sure--9/11 was a cause for Bush, but Manise, most of the things you cited for this year would have applied in 2004 as well. Again, what makes this any different?
    Because in 2004, Bush had not completely imploded as he did just a year later after Katrina and the uptick in Iraq violence. Voters still gave the wartime president the benefit of the doubt. In fact, the question should be why Bush had such a rough time in 2004? Here's a sitting president conducting a worldwide war on terror and enjoying the solid support of his party (which controls both houses of Congress) who can barely defeat a flawed Massachusetts liberal like John Kerry.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique View Post
    In the end I do think it will come down to the candidates themselves. If McCain gets the Republican nomination you're not going to have a certain victory, IMO. I don't think it's in the bag, but it seems a lot of Democrats sure think so.
    Assuming for the moment that no scandals or significant bloopers damage McCain or Obama, how does McCain overcome his electoral disadvantages today?

    First, he won't take the electoral rich coast states like New York and California. Or Illinois and much of the upper midwest. Or the Northeast. Or even some southern states like Katrina-battered Louisiana and Democratic leaning Virginia. He'll have trouble in Florida too. States like Colorado and Iowa are trending Democratic too. So McCain wins Arizona and Texas and most of the Deep South. That leaves battleground states like Missouri and Ohio and West Virginia. Missouri is always close, but Obama will get out the black vote in St. Louis and Kansas City like no candidate in US history. Ohio is trending Democrat. West Virginia is a possible McCain win, but his vote in favor of immigrant "amnesty" won't go down well there.

    McCain may get some Hispanic support, but Obama's ethnic appeal will influence most Hispanics, who are voting in larger numbers each election, to stick with Obama. That puts Texas into play (though I still think McCain would take Texas in the end). However, it would force the Republicans to spend alot of money in states that Bush won easily in 2000 and 2004.

    But I think in 2008 the women's vote will be decisive. I don't see McCain winning that group either.

    Perhaps you have other scenarios that bolster McCain's chances (or Romney's or Huckabee's or Guiliani's). Nothing is certain--and I have never claimed the Democrats WILL win. But I like the lay of the land so far.

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    There is a sort of waxing poetic about the Clinton legacy that goes to the root of just how good a salesman Bill was. Gore took the ax that was aimed at Clinton's head but that the people were too mesmerized to use on Clinton himself. There was also the strong contrast between Clinton and Gore. Gore was stoic, cardboard, unemotional, and uninspirational. That he went to great lengths to remake his image does not help in the previous election. Gore lost because people were tired of being run by the Clinton dynasty and they didn't feel Gore was a man of any conviction (sound familiar hillary?).

    For all the talk of Hillary being the front-runner just a few weeks ago, I fail to understand how the Dem party believes they can win the Presidency with a candidate half the electorate cannot stand. They are doomed to repeat the Al Gore mistake all over again. Luckily for the DNC, Obama has emerged as a serious rival (the true test will be when the candidates emerge from the backwater states). For whatever reason, be it white guilt, his good looks, eloquent speaking style, people are enamored by the guy. In any case, he should be the guy Republicans fear. He has the charm to win without being specific about much of anything. He can get the coveted black and female vote. He can also get independent support so long as he isn't forced to acknowledge just how far left his policy visions truly lean.

    I certainly don't feel the Dems have it in the bag. In another thread I commented that Republicans lie to keep their base and Dems lie to attract moderates. So long as this remains true, the Dems are always one misstep from losing moderate support. A moderate can easily be lost to the other party. A member of the Republican base isn't likely to vote Democrat. At worst, they will simply stay home. This is why key Republican strategies have included "energizing" the base. Karl Rove's genius was in finding a way for Bush to energize the base while keeping moderates on-board. Clinton's genius was in convincing moderates he was moderate too and then winking at his base to ensure them he wasn't really that moderate (remember the first version of Hillary-care?). What Bill was able to do was craft socialist policy through his wife and then convince everyone he was a moderate. Of course, now it has cost Hillary her own politcal future. She cannot convince anyone she is a moderate like Bill because she had to do his dirty work. As such, Obama is now the Democrat with the best chance to lie to the independents and convince them he is a moderate, just like them.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  9. #9
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Gore didn't have such an easy transition. While Clinton remained popular, he ended his presidency with controversial pardons of Mark Rich and others, further angering the substantial minority of Americans who absoluted hated the Clinton.
    Mark Rich wasn't pardoned until after the election, so that couldn't have been a factor in the election.

    I completely agree that Clinton's coat tails weren't as long as Reagan's due to his scandal ridden tenure in the White House, but the fact remains he was hugely popular. Even so, if we accept that it was the Gore Campaign's decision to cut Clinton out of the race because Clinton had image problems, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for Democratic campaign planning. Just like saying we shouldn't look at 2004 because Kerry was a bad candidate--well, Kerry was chosen by the Democratic party, so if he was a bad candidate my point still stands--the Democrats have lost two elections in a row that they should have won.

    Because in 2004, Bush had not completely imploded as he did just a year later after Katrina and the uptick in Iraq violence. Voters still gave the wartime president the benefit of the doubt. In fact, the question should be why Bush had such a rough time in 2004? Here's a sitting president conducting a worldwide war on terror and enjoying the solid support of his party (which controls both houses of Congress) who can barely defeat a flawed Massachusetts liberal like John Kerry.
    His polls were already in the crapper, that's why, and moderates were abandoning him after they realized that his 'compassionate conservatism' claim was bogus. Conservatives were abandoning him because he was spending the country into further debt and following an interventionist policy most disagree with. Again, you can't point to the flawed nature of the candidate (Kerry) and use that as a defense against my point--that's part of my point exactly. The Democratic Party has chosen losers the last two election cycles, and very well might have chosen a loser in 1996 were it not for a business man from Texas.

    So, everything is lined up for them again this year, and yes, more so than in 2004 definitely (I still maintain that Gore losing 2000 was ridiculous), why will the Democratic party not screw it all up this time around and actually back the winning horse?

    First, he won't take the electoral rich coast states like New York and California. Or Illinois and much of the upper midwest. Or the Northeast. Or even some southern states like Katrina-battered Louisiana and Democratic leaning Virginia. He'll have trouble in Florida too. States like Colorado and Iowa are trending Democratic too. So McCain wins Arizona and Texas and most of the Deep South. That leaves battleground states like Missouri and Ohio and West Virginia. Missouri is always close, but Obama will get out the black vote in St. Louis and Kansas City like no candidate in US history. Ohio is trending Democrat. West Virginia is a possible McCain win, but his vote in favor of immigrant "amnesty" won't go down well there.
    - Republicans haven't taken New York or California in 20 years and they've won the last two presidential elections.
    - I'm not sure why he wouldn't take Illinois (Obama coming from Illinois I suppose) or the Midwest. I'd be surprised if he didn't play very well in the Midwest, to be honest.
    - The Northeast is generally liberal, so no surprise there.
    - He'll have no trouble in Florida or Colorado because his status as a veteran will play very well to those populations (Colorado is full of military in particular).
    - Iowa could go either way, it's not opened or closed.
    - West Virginia is a McCain win against Obama IMO.
    - Ohio and Missouri are anyone's guess. I don't think you can say either would definitely go one way or the other.

    Again, many of the states are pretty much spoken for already. The coasts in particular and the North East are pretty much going to go Democratic. That didn't stop Republican victories the last two times. The South, Midwest, and Rockies are going to go Republican. I can't help but think it'll end up being another dog fight in Ohio to decide the election.

    I don't like Huckabee, Romney, or Giuliani in nationwide elections. I think Romney is on his way out as we speak (like Clinton), Giuliani's campaign has been a mess from the beginning, and Huckabee will get slaughtered when people start to concentrate more on him as the other candidates dwindle.
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,617
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Convince you?


    George Bush.
    Eight years.

    Q.E.D.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    1,921
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique View Post
    I completely agree that Clinton's coat tails weren't as long as Reagan's due to his scandal ridden tenure in the White House, but the fact remains he was hugely popular. Even so, if we accept that it was the Gore Campaign's decision to cut Clinton out of the race because Clinton had image problems, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement for Democratic campaign planning. Just like saying we shouldn't look at 2004 because Kerry was a bad candidate--well, Kerry was chosen by the Democratic party, so if he was a bad candidate my point still stands--the Democrats have lost two elections in a row that they should have won.
    Aside from my embarrassing timeline mistake on the Mark Rich pardon, I repeat my contention that Gore had an uphill battle in 2000. We don't know if Clinton could have swung the election toward Gore as you claim. Clinton is not helping his wife as evidenced by his disappearance from the campaign stump in New Hampshire, and Hillary's poor showing in Iowa where Bill vigorously campaigned for her. Bill Clinton is the one who claims that Gore screwed up in 2000 by not using him more. It's more than a little self-serving. After all, if Gore didn't need Clinton then Bill would have to acknowledge flaws and mistakes.

    Besides, Clinton's popularity didn't stop the Republicans from recapturing the Congress and winning control at state and local levels, allowing the successful gerrymandering of congressional districts to favor Republican candidates in swing states. Clinton's. personal popularity belied the disastrous state of the Democratic Party during Clinton's second term. Gore's campaign mistakes didn't help, but he had narrow margin of error to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique
    His polls were already in the crapper, that's why, and moderates were abandoning him after they realized that his 'compassionate conservatism' claim was bogus.

    Conservatives were abandoning him because he was spending the country into further debt and following an interventionist policy most disagree with. Again, you can't point to the flawed nature of the candidate (Kerry) and use that as a defense against my point--that's part of my point exactly. The Democratic Party has chosen losers the last two election cycles, and very well might have chosen a loser in 1996 were it not for a business man from Texas.
    Bush was not as weak in 2004 as he would become in 2005. As an incumbent war-time president he still enjoyed the support of at least half of Americans. There was no evidence that Republicans would abandon him-he ran unopposed in most of the Republican primaries. That saved him miltiple millions of dollars for the general election.

    The Democrats, on the other hand, suffered a devisive primary season focused on the Iraq War. Anti-war folks elevated Dean to frontrunner status while the moderate party machine looked for an alternative. Kerry was the compromise. But any Democrat would have faced the same Bush team and fat treasury and electoral map favorable to Republicans (thanks to 8 years of gerrymandering). Though not impossible, a Democratic win against a sitting wartime president was by no means a given.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique
    So, everything is lined up for them again this year, and yes, more so than in 2004 definitely (I still maintain that Gore losing 2000 was ridiculous), why will the Democratic party not screw it all up this time around and actually back the winning horse?
    Again, your analysis overrates the importance of a specific candidate and minimizes structural factors like party strength in the states, the overall mood of the electorate, and party unity. In 2008 you have stronger Democratic organizations in some Red states like Virginia and Colorado--states that any Republican must win. You also have more independents voting Democratic.

    The mood of the electorate is much different today than in 2000 or 2004. I believe that favors the Democratic candidate.

    And, of both parties, the Democrats are more unified and motivated. None of the Republican candidates have sparked fire in the Republican base, let alone among independents and sympathetic Democrats.

    Quote Originally Posted by phrique
    - Republicans haven't taken New York or California in 20 years and they've won the last two presidential elections.
    - I'm not sure why he wouldn't take Illinois (Obama coming from Illinois I suppose) or the Midwest. I'd be surprised if he didn't play very well in the Midwest, to be honest.
    - The Northeast is generally liberal, so no surprise there.
    - He'll have no trouble in Florida or Colorado because his status as a veteran will play very well to those populations (Colorado is full of military in particular).
    - Iowa could go either way, it's not opened or closed.
    - West Virginia is a McCain win against Obama IMO.
    - Ohio and Missouri are anyone's guess. I don't think you can say either would definitely go one way or the other.

    Again, many of the states are pretty much spoken for already. The coasts in particular and the North East are pretty much going to go Democratic. That didn't stop Republican victories the last two times. The South, Midwest, and Rockies are going to go Republican. I can't help but think it'll end up being another dog fight in Ohio to decide the election.
    Your predictions sound reasonable assuming that that the structural factors I mentioned above resemble conditions in 2000 and 2004. I think the terrain has changed. Just look at the growing popularity of national health insurance, an issue that nearly destroyed the Clinton administration. Today, it's mainstream. Calls for massive tax cuts are all but non-existent today, unlike in 2000 and 2004. Environmental issues connected to global warming are also big as is education. And foreign intervention has lost its appeal. The Democrats are well positioned on those issues.

  12. #12
    Will ADMIN 4 Gas Money

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,501
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    And, of both parties, the Democrats are more unified and motivated. None of the Republican candidates have sparked fire in the Republican base, let alone among independents and sympathetic Democrats.
    At this point this definitely appears to be true. If it holds true through an election--and I would caution that perceived invincibility can work against the Democrats in this instance--I'd agree that the Democrats should win, but again, I felt that way the last two times as well.

    I'm not trying to argue that things are the same now as they were then. Circumstances have definitely changed, but the sum total for all three of these elections favored the Democrats, and the Democratic party screwed it up the last two times.

    Anyway, interesting discussion Manise.
    -= Phrique =-

    I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew.
    - The Beastie Boys

  13. #13
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mid-south
    Posts
    599
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by manise View Post
    ...I repeat my contention that Gore had an uphill battle in 2000. We don't know if Clinton could have swung the election toward Gore as you claim.
    This is the real issue to be debated as per the first set of assumptions about the Democratic party in 2000 (the thread). Bill Clinton was trying very hard to cement a legacy and attempted to push ME peace talks rather than worry about if Al Gore could actually carry the new election. This is completely ironic in that George Bush is now on his way to the ME to try and cement a legacy after all the foriegn policy blunders during 7 years and pounding on Clinton about how wrong he was.

    With that, the Democrats had zero advantages in the 2000 election to win, an outgoing president is not the playing field of an 'incumbent.' The classic one is that Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon in '68 after RFK had gained so much ground for the party (Nixon did have an October surprise though). LBJ had done nothing to help the party.

    GHWB is the only one who has really been able to get a boost from an outgoing president, Reagan saw the party as part of his legacy. Most do not.

    Again the assumptions the orignal thread are based on are not quite accurate here.
    Liberty: One of Imagination's most precious possessions.
    ---Ambrose Bierce

    Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage. ---Ambrose Bierce

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northern VA, US
    Posts
    212
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    It seems this idea has already been posted, but here it goes:

    Though an out-going president may be popular, that does NOT secure that party's election. Clinton was very popular, but he only occasionally campaigned for Gore--he was more of an endorsement.

    2004, the Democrats almost took back the White House, but the country wasn't that opposed to the incumbency yet.

    By 2008, the country has grown past-weary of the current president/vice-president. And, too make things worse for the GOP, several of the candidates remind voters of the current Bush legacy:

    John McCain: though he often competes at polar opposites with Bush, ran in 2000, and almost had an early victory.

    Giuliani: constantly reminds voters of his connection with 9/11, another huge Bush legacy (whether positive or not).

    Huckabee: very similar to Bush: southern, highly supported by the Christian rights, quick and witty, but not always the brightest speaker.

    Mitt Romney would be the only exception, and seeing as all his hopes are pinned to Michigan...well, we'll see how that goes.

    This is all just a hypothesis. But, because of the current 35%-approved president, I believe it is highly likely a Democrat will win in 2008.
    "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"
    Luke 23:34


    Barack Obama '08
    AJFXW

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,470
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by AJFXW View Post
    Huckabee: very similar to Bush: southern, highly supported by the Christian rights, quick and witty, but not always the brightest speaker.
    I highly disagree with the comparison of their public speaking. Huckabee has continually impressed me with his eloquence. His experience as a pastor may be the reason. Just the other day, he answered a question about his supporting the biblical verse about wives submitting to their husbands. He deflected it first with humor about how he keeps hearing that religion shouldn't be a part of the election, but he always gets the religious questions. Then he went right into it and said that anyone who knows his wife knows that she isn't a weak-willed person, but they believe the commandment is wise, taken in context: the husband must also serve his wife. He then gave a more casual explanation that marriage is not a 50/50 effort, but 100/100, requiring love and dedication, and that's why marriage is such an important institution in America to be defended.

    So he managed to get a political hint in there about gay marriage, not dodge the question and explain the theology, and then he closed by saying generally he would not run the country by his personal religious beliefs, although he does not deny his religion and is proud of it and open about it. He managed to cover all this ground in about 30-45 seconds. Imagine what Bush might have come up with, asked the same question. "Well, uh...I believe in the verse..but..that's my personal belief and uh...it's really not relevant, and I think we should be talking about national security instead of my religion."

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    The Democrats will win because.....

    - The Democrats base is energized and highly motivated, they are rallying behind two candidates with views that are very similar. The party is united.

    - Republicans are scrambling for an identity... They are split between many candidates, with a wide array of views. At stake, the unity between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.

    Should this end up with divisive candidates (ie: Clinton-Giuliani), in comes Bloomberg who will likely take more votes off the demoralized Republicans then from the pumped up Democrats. In fact, in such a case, Bloomberg might even stand a chance (with two large block of voters who would not vote for either Clinton or for voting in the neo-cons a third time).
    Last edited by Vandaler; January 13th, 2008 at 06:49 AM.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northern VA, US
    Posts
    212
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Kevin Browning--
    I completely agree. I was merely commenting that at times, Huckabee tends to give more witty responses that actually political answers, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. (Such as with his Pakistan response--a total *whoops*: he somehow compared Bhutto's assassination with immigration).
    Were it not for his radical views on the War and the economy, I would strongly support him for the GOP nomination. And, if Clinton wins, I would even support him for the general election.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Should this end up with divisive candidates (ie: Clinton-Giuliani), in comes Bloomberg who will likely take more votes off the demoralized Republicans then from the pumped up Democrats. In fact, in such a case, Bloomberg might even stand a chance (with two large block of voters who would not vote for either Clinton or for voting in the neo-cons a third time).
    This I disagree with. Worst case scenario for Dems is a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg election. Bloomberg, like Giuliani, is a liberal independent. Clinton might still win, with the Dems enjoying such a stronger popularity, but I Bloomberg will definently take votes away from her. It seems the Dems always lose when it comes to independents--just shows how much stronger we are then the GOP :-).
    "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"
    Luke 23:34


    Barack Obama '08
    AJFXW

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    7,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    The Democrats around here are "smug" as Phrique put it. They should be. When you become defeatist, you get defeated.

    As far as I'm concerned, partisan politics and fundraising are things I never got involved with. If either party gets too pushy I'll vote the other way just to annoy them. Leave me and my opinions alone. Thank you.
    While laughing at others stupidity, you may want to contemplate your own comedic talents. (link)
    Disclaimer: This information is being provided for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by AJFXW View Post
    This I disagree with. Worst case scenario for Dems is a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg election. Bloomberg, like Giuliani, is a liberal independent. Clinton might still win, with the Dems enjoying such a stronger popularity, but I Bloomberg will definently take votes away from her.
    Hi,

    Can you explain... if both are liberal independent, would'nt they be both drawing from the same pool of potential voters ?
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Northern VA, US
    Posts
    212
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democratic Victory a Certainty? Convince me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    Can you explain... if both are liberal independent, would'nt they be both drawing from the same pool of potential voters ?
    Let's say one liberal and one conservative runs for election, out of a pool of 100 people--50 conservatives, 50 liberals. All 50 liberals would go to the liberal, and 50 conservatives would go to the conservative.

    Nows lets assume that we have the same 100 voters, but now 1 conservative and 2 liberals running. 50 votes would still go to the conservative, but the liberals might be split 35-15, or 25-25, or as least something less than 50-0.

    Both Clinton and Bloomberg would be drawing from the liberal-leaning voting bloc, lessening how many votes each gets, hurting the Dem's chances of winning. For this reason, a Clinton-Giuliani-Bloomberg election is bad for the Democrats.
    "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"
    Luke 23:34


    Barack Obama '08
    AJFXW

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 29
    Last Post: December 3rd, 2007, 12:17 PM
  2. US Victory in Iraq "Ruled Out"
    By Booger in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 14th, 2006, 08:59 AM
  3. Jihad?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: June 21st, 2006, 06:30 AM
  4. Military Draft possible in 2005
    By Tom9984 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: January 16th, 2005, 10:21 PM
  5. Humans Inability to be Democratic
    By PallidaMors in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: October 4th, 2004, 04:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •