How The Democrats Could Lose

[iman]

I have been surprised by the overconfidence of many Dems this year, particularly the Obama supporters.

Richard Cohen compares the Nixon/McGovern debacle with the 2008 election and ends with this paragraph:

You can see it all happening again: a Republican charging that the Democrats are defeatist, soft on national security and not to be trusted with the White House. And you can see the Democratic Party heading toward Denver for yet another crackup. This time, instead of McGovern, a genuine war hero (the Distinguished Flying Cross) caricatured as a sissy, the party will put up either a candidate who has been inconsistent on the war or one with almost no foreign policy or military experience. A year ago, it looked like the party could not lose. This year, it seems determined to try.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/1972_all_over_again.html

 

[naked gent]

Mr. Cohen seems to forget that Nixon was already withdrawing troops from Vietnam by election day in 1974.

I don't think John McCain is going to propose that and had Nixon said we're going to stay in Vietnam for as long as it takes the outcome might have been different.

But I agree with you that there are never any guarantees which is why it would be helpful if in the future Mrs. Clinton could refrain from saying John McCain would make a better Commander in Chief than Barack Obama.

I mean whose side is she on?

 

[jackoroe]

The surest way for the dims to lose it to nominate Clinton or Obama. They seem to be heading that way!

 

[tmb1]

The surest way for the dims to lose it to nominate Clinton or Obama. They seem to be heading that way!

Um, okay. Whatever, back to reality. I think it could have been a cakewalk until Clinton went so negative. She has not only smeared and damaged Obama, but the whole party. And if she ends up stealing the nom, she has divided the party so badly that she will lose the general election. Tell me how many black people and those new Obama voters are going to even vote(let alone for her) if she pulls what is needed to overtake Obama's delegate lead by conning the superdelegates to give it to her. I still have confidence they won't, but in the mean time she is saying such devastating things about him that he may be too damaged to even win.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Mr. Cohen seems to forget that Nixon was already withdrawing troops from Vietnam by election day in 1974.

I don't think John McCain is going to propose that and had Nixon said we're going to stay in Vietnam for as long as it takes the outcome might have been different.

But I agree with you that there are never any guarantees which is why it would be helpful if in the future Mrs. Clinton could refrain from saying John McCain would make a better Commander in Chief than Barack Obama.

I mean whose side is she on?

I doubt Cohen forgot that, seeing that not only was Nixon not President by election day 1974, but all American troops had been withdrawn. And it doesn't matter if Hillary says that Sen McCain would make a better commander in chief than Sen Obama....the voters will find that out in the coming months.

 

[khushibagh]

Um, okay. Whatever, back to reality. I think it could have been a cakewalk until Clinton went so negative. She has not only smeared and damaged Obama, but the whole party. And if she ends up stealing the nom, she has divided the party so badly that she will lose the general election. Tell me how many black people and those new Obama voters are going to even vote(let alone for her) if she pulls what is needed to overtake Obama's delegate lead by conning the superdelegates to give it to her. I still have confidence they won't, but in the mean time she is saying such devastating things about him that he may be too damaged to even win.

My thoughts exactly. Hillary is setting things up so that McCain has the potential to wipe the floor with her if he reaches out to all the Democrats Hillary has disgusted.

 

[naked gent]

I doubt Cohen forgot that, seeing that not only was Nixon not President by election day 1974, but all American troops had been withdrawn.

oops my bad.

 

[CO Bob]

I am so enjoying how the Democrats are imploding. How they have mis-managed delegates in two states, how the front runner is now behind the upstart, and how the upstart has no business wading in the deep end.

This is so great! What's next, Howard Dean yelling?

And finally, all of those who look fondly upon this batch of nim-compoops,.....How on earth can you look to trust these Bozo's with the health care of every American in the country? 1/7th of the American economy is based in health care, and these people cannot even handle their own primary's!

Oh yeah......I could not have imagined this kind of complete and total implosion in my wildest dreams!

 

[iman]

More than likely we will see some troops withdrawn before election day.

It is the Obama campaign that has been negative from the beginning. Obama has almost no record so that trashing the Clintons must necessarily be his chief strategy.

It was the Obama campaign that suggested to the press that they look into Bill Clinton's post Presidential sex life and hypocritically asked the press to look into Hsu fund raising for the Clintons (Obama also received funding from Hsu).
Obama has frequently talked about Clinton negatives and has repeatedly used the "she will do anything, say anything to get elected" , all designed to lower her electability.
The Obama campaign has repeatedly imitated the right wing attacks on the Clintons from the 90's, but even the right wing never stooped so low as to portray the Clintons as racists which Obama has done.

Obama apparently plans to win the nomination by trying to make Clinton unelectable. The campaign that Obama has run is not about the Democrats or Hope or Change or what is best for the country, it is all about Obama, and nothing else seem to matter to him.

 

[lancelva]

My thoughts exactly. Hillary is setting things up so that McCain has the potential to wipe the floor with her if he reaches out to all the Democrats Hillary has disgusted.

Actually, Senator Clinton is actually doing much better among Democrats in the primary. Anyway, as is typical of Obama supporters, they point out perceived flaws in Senator Clinton while failing to realize that Mr. Hope (TM) himself is guilty of the same crime. Many of you have pointed out Senator Clinton's recent comments about John McCain and said that it could be used in the general election. Well, what about this recent excahnge Obama had in a CNN interview?

Q: Well let me ask you, what specific experience do you have in handling a crisis that would make you the better person to field that 3 a.m. phone call?

A: Well, and that's the point, nobody does, because nobody's been in that situation unless they've been President. The question then becomes who's got the kind of judgment on these critical issues that shows some evidence that you can in fact understand how the world is operating and when we have to deal with issues in a military way, and on question like Iraq, on questions like Pakistan and Iran, I think that the judgment I've shown over the last several, several years has been superior to both Senator Clinton's and to Senator McCain's. And if longevity is the measure by which we determine who's got the best experience to answer that phone call, then John McCain wins because he's been there the longest.

So not only does Obama concede that he doesn't have the experience in answering that phone call, he bolsters McCain in the last sentence.

 

[khushibagh]

And how pray tell did Hillary get her experience answering the phone?

By having to answer it while Bill was downstairs being blown?

Or should we vote for her because she'll pass the phone to Bill when it rings?

I take it that the only common ground that Clinton and Obama have found on this topic is that McCain is ready, willing and able to answer the phone?

 

[chance1]

sorry for the sports analogy but ......................

McCain has a "puncher's chance"

some/many of the following would be necessary for him to win IMO:

economy improves - less of a catastrophe - cuz mccain is not known for his deep thinking on the issue

dems move left - candidate decides to chase moveon.org crowd - who r not worthy of chasing and who will vote their way anyway - reg folks see this and grab for the barf bag

iraq situation keeps improving - very possible - and mccain reminds folks that the surge was really his idea and people figure out that if mccain had been in charge all along, this would not have been so bad

hillary vs. barack knock down, drag it out fighting makes for scars and supporters of each do not support the other

and some more

but w/o this kinda shit, it's dems big

cuz people want something new and as much as mccain and bush are apples and oranges, the dems will paint it otherwise

my 2 cents

 

[naked gent]

Actually, Senator Clinton is actually doing much better among Democrats in the primary.

Could be but when I say Gov. Rendell on MTP on Sunday I couldn't help but notice that Obama was attempting to win Penn. the same way democrats always try to win Penn by rolling up large majorities in Pitt and Philly big enough to overcome their poor showing in the middle part of the state.

Mrs. Clinton was going for the middle which, if history is any guide, will vote for McCain in the general. If she wins the state with a middle strategy its about as valuable as Obama winning Wyoming.

So not only does Obama concede that he doesn't have the experience in answering that phone call, he bolsters McCain in the last sentence.

The key word in Obama's reference to McCain is if....without it you have a point....with it you don't.

 

[rlitt99]

The surest way for the dims to lose it to nominate Clinton or Obama. They seem to be heading that way!

BINGO! No one seems to want to discuss the big white elephant in the room. America is NOT going to have a black man or a woman as president. It's simply NOT going to happen. The Republicans haven't even begun to fight.

Just wait... If Obama is the Democratic nominee, you'll start to hear a LOT more about his middle name. The Republicans will use every cheap trick in the book and America, as usual, will fall for it. You will see a galvinization of white supremacy groups (secretly funded by Republicans) like hasn't been seen in 40 years.

Homosexuals should know just as well as anyone how this country works. It's a sad truth, but it IS the truth. John McCain IS the next president.

 

[iman]

Could be but when I say Gov. Rendell on MTP on Sunday I couldn't help but notice that Obama was attempting to win Penn. the same way democrats always try to win Penn by rolling up large majorities in Pitt and Philly big enough to overcome their poor showing in the middle part of the state.

Mrs. Clinton was going for the middle which, if history is any guide, will vote for McCain in the general. If she wins the state with a middle strategy its about as valuable as Obama winning Wyoming.

Actually there is considerable Democratic support between Philly and Pittsburgh. The city of Lancaster, for instance, surrounded by uber conservative Amish and Mennonite farmers, is the sixth largest Democratic vote in the state.

The real battle will be in the suburbs which can negate the large plurality coming out of Philly. Many of the suburbs are upscale Obama country and many are middle/working class Clinton country. Should be interesting.

 

[jackoroe]

BINGO! No one seems to want to discuss the big white elephant in the room. America is NOT going to have a black man or a woman as president. It's simply NOT going to happen. The Republicans haven't even begun to fight.

Just wait... If Obama is the Democratic nominee, you'll start to hear a LOT more about his middle name. The Republicans will use every cheap trick in the book and America, as usual, will fall for it. You will see a galvinization of white supremacy groups (secretly funded by Republicans) like hasn't been seen in 40 years.

Homosexuals should know just as well as anyone how this country works. It's a sad truth, but it IS the truth. John McCain IS the next president.

I would disrespectfully disagree that the US would not elect either a black or woman president. That was not my point. The point is that these two are far too left for this country. He's too inexperienced and she's too disliked, deservedly so.

Using Hussein is OK, I really could care less what his name is. But it is his name and he should be proud of it, as I am of mine. That's a nothing issue.

I'd like to see some evidence about the Republicans secretely funding white supremest groups. Share it with us all, I'd enjoy reading it!

BTW, welcome!

 

[rlitt99]

Actually there is considerable Democratic support between Philly and Pittsburgh. The city of Lancaster, for instance, surrounded by uber conservative Amish and Mennonite farmers, is the sixth largest Democratic vote in the state.

The real battle will be in the suburbs which can negate the large plurality coming out of Philly. Many of the suburbs are upscale Obama country and many are middle/working class Clinton country. Should be interesting.

Suburbs?! There's a lot of America you're not thinking about. You think Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky, etc. are going to vote in a minority. ESPECIALLY after the Republicans turn on the machine? It's not just people who are going to vote for McCain, it's also people who will vote for him just because they're voting against a black man or a woman. Republicans will make sure that redneck inbreds take some time off from cornholing their sister to actually make it to the polls to save America for "the white man" or whatever. Bottom line is: The democrats have f**ked themselves AGAIN by putting up unelectables.


Judging by the complete lack of acceptance in this fact, I'd say most of you must live in NY, L.A., or Chicago. Or maybe you just don't live in reality, but here in the real world America will NOT have a minority for a president.

 

[rlitt99]

Using Hussein is OK, I really could care less what his name is. But it is his name and he should be proud of it, as I am of mine. That's a nothing issue.

It's a nothing issue to you and me and every other intelligent person. It's NOT going to be a "nothing issue" when Republicans make it something their followers care about. Do you people really not know how this works?

 

[naked gent]

Just wait... If Obama is the Democratic nominee, you'll start to hear a LOT more about his middle name. The Republicans will use every cheap trick in the book and America, as usual, will fall for it. You will see a galvinization of white supremacy groups (secretly funded by Republicans) like hasn't been seen in 40 years.

I'll say upfront that I think the country is more likely to elect a woman than a black but if the republicans run the kind of campaign you suggest John McCain will never be able to govern.

Its likely he'll be dealing with a congress completely controlled by democrats and if he wins using racist or sexist tactics I don't think he'll be given much respect come Jan. 20.

There are many parts of this country where such tactics might not be a problem but Washington D.C. is not one of them.

If it plays out the way you say we're all be losers.

 

[Sammie13]

As I sit here today, I'm more convinced than ever that McCain will win in November. Repubs run much better campaigns, and know the hot button issues. They always deliver clear, concise messages with great focus and a clear vision (even if it is BS).

The Democrats are running the typical liberal candidates that put a big smile on their right-wing faces. It's just too easy. And the novelty of a black and female candidate plays well among the Democrats, but that will settle down in November. Obama impressed me somewhat early on, but each day that passes, I see him as bland and weak. If Hillary can make him look bad (and she did with very little effort), the Repubs will destroy him. And the last thing the Obama campaign needs to do is make race an issue at every corner (like the Ferraro/Bill Clinton situations) because each time they do that they're reminding white people that we could potentially be hearing the race card alot for the next 4-8 years. And then there's Hillary where we know there is always a "scandal" around every corner. The Clintons are like the Britney Spears of politics... a tabloid story a month. She has the high negatives that will bring her down in November and a terrible problem of her campaign staying focused. Although, I certainly think she has the mettle to go toe-to-toe with the GOP where Obama does not.

Maybe the war and bad economy can save the Democrats, but I just can't see that right now. It's the right time for the Dems, but the wrong people.