SuperJerk 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Which is a stupid strategy considering how well Democrats still do in southern cities. Doing well in cities isn't the Democrats' problem... Exactly. They've got their opening, but they refuse to take advantage of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I'm wondering what our resident conservative gang's opinion is on a theory I heard floating around the other day that said if Hilary runs in 2008, it puts the GOP in an almost no-win sitiuation. They'e be compelled to run someone with star power against her, but most of the republicans who are household names like Rudy wouldn't be conservative enough for the base that Bush has built and they might stay home instead of voting for a liberal republican. On the other hand, if they run someone who's 100% conservative republican, it would probably be someone most people never heard of and they'd get slaughtered at the polls. Thoughts? I think that kind of logic sells republicans short, but I do know there's a lot of people in the GOP who won't vote for someone who even slightly is to the left on any issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 How about we wait a while before doing '08 theories? It's only FOUR YEARS AWAY... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 How about we wait a while before doing '08 theories? It's only FOUR YEARS AWAY... Because the GOP really doesn't have anyone who is a conservative enough for the base and has big enough name value to win. C'mon, if you guys want to extend your world domination past 2008 you gotta have some plans in order. You're totally ruining my image of the GOP here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I'm wondering what our resident conservative gang's opinion is on a theory I heard floating around the other day that said if Hilary runs in 2008, it puts the GOP in an almost no-win sitiuation. They'e be compelled to run someone with star power against her, but most of the republicans who are household names like Rudy wouldn't be conservative enough for the base that Bush has built and they might stay home instead of voting for a liberal republican. Are you shitting me? If it's Hillary in 2008, forget about it. There is no situation where the conservative base turns against their candidates / potential candidates when paired up against HER. Forget Bill - SHE is the Clinton that the conservative base REALLY hates. It doesn't even matter if the Republican candidate winds up being someone who's considered more "liberal" like Rudy - they'll support him over Hillary, because the alternative (i.e. Hillary winning) is much, much too frightening to contemplate. Look, your little scenario fails to take into consideration that Bush has done a lot of things which have upset his own party, but they sure didn't turn against him in this past election. Why? Because no matter what their issues with him were, they couldn't perceive that things would go better for them if Kerry was elected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I'm a conservative. We have a resident group? Anyway- your points are valid. I've thought about that a lot, and I've come to a few conclusions. Hillary is a really divisive character- I know a TON of democrats who despise her. I don't think she'd get as much support as you'd think. I think that the GOP would probably run McCain as her opposition. The only other names I've heard tossed around are Rudy (he'll never get it) or Mitt Romney (Massachusetts Gov.) which I think would be a waste, b/c he wouldn't win his home state (which Gore didn't do either). I truly believe that the first woman President as well as the first black President will be a Republican. Dems are too divided- they have no identity. If the Republicans nominate a woman/African-American, s/he will win, b/c they will have the support of the GOP as well as many Democratic women/blacks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I'm wondering what our resident conservative gang's opinion is on a theory I heard floating around the other day that said if Hilary runs in 2008, it puts the GOP in an almost no-win sitiuation. They'e be compelled to run someone with star power against her, but most of the republicans who are household names like Rudy wouldn't be conservative enough for the base that Bush has built and they might stay home instead of voting for a liberal republican. Are you shitting me? If it's Hillary in 2008, forget about it. There is no situation where the conservative base turns against their candidates / potential candidates when paired up against HER. Forget Bill - SHE is the Clinton that the conservative base REALLY hates. It doesn't even matter if the Republican candidate winds up being someone who's considered more "liberal" like Rudy - they'll support him over Hillary, because the alternative (i.e. Hillary winning) is much, much too frightening to contemplate. Look, your little scenario fails to take into consideration that Bush has done a lot of things which have upset his own party, but they sure didn't turn against him in this past election. Why? Because no matter what their issues with him were, they couldn't perceive that things would go better for them if Kerry was elected. Yeah. I agree, totally. A Republican that's not totally in-line w/ the party is better then a Democrat who is nowhere near in-line w/ the party. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 He wasn't suggesting they'd vote for Hillary. He's suggesting turnout would be down significantly, and it'd give the Dems a shot at winning. If you think the hick vote is always going to turn out at incredibly high rates, even when there's an adultering divorcee on the ticket under the ® column, you're delusional. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fro 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Well, it's official. Dean named Democratic Party chief Former presidential candidate rips Bush's plans for America WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean took the helm of the Democratic National Committee on Saturday, vowing, "Today will be the beginning of the re-emergence of the Democratic Party." Dean, 56, won the chairmanship on a voice vote of the 447-member committee after six other candidates dropped out in recent weeks. He immediately laid out his vision for rebuilding a party clobbered in recent elections, leaving it out of power in the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a majority of governorships. "Republicans wandered around in the political wilderness for 40 years before they took back Congress. "But the reason that we lost control is because we forgot why we were entrusted with that control in the first place," Dean said in his acceptance speech. "The American people cannot afford to wait for 40 more years for us to put Washington back to work for them." "It won't take us that long -- not if we stand up for what we believe in, organize at the local level, and recognize that strength does not come from the consultants down. It comes from the grass roots up." Republicans, Dean said, "know the America they want, and...are not afraid to use any means to get there. "But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of -- it is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe: fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought." The former presidential contender, who appeared likely to win the party's nomination before his candidacy fizzled in early 2004, promised to work hard in areas in which the Democratic Party faces major uphill battles. While avoiding the heated, emotional style of his infamous "scream" speech that contributed to his loss of the presidential nomination, Dean, in measured tones, lobbed heavy criticism at the GOP and President Bush's agenda. Referring to Bush's 2006 budget, submitted this week, Dean said, "The Republicans introduced a $2.5 trillion budget that deliberately conceals the cost of their fiscal recklessness." The budget, Dean said, "brings Enron-style accounting to the nation's capital and it demonstrates once again what all Americans are now beginning to see: you cannot trust Republicans with your money." He lashed out at Bush's Social Security plan, which would allow people to place some money earmarked for Social Security into private investment accounts. "We believe that a lifetime of work earns you a retirement of dignity," he said. "We will not let that be put at risk by leaders who continually invent false crises to justify policies that don't work, in this case borrowing from our children, shredding our social safety net in the process." Despite his litany of criticisms, Dean said, "We cannot win if all we are is against the current president and his administration." "The Republicans will not tell Americans what the Democratic agenda is. We will do that," he aid. Dean described his party is a "big tent" that represents the young, the elders, veterans, members of the armed services, and all working Americans "desperate for a government that looks out for them." Dean also vowed to work to help the Democratic Party build a reputation as strong on national security, saying, "There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense." Some Democrats are nervous that Dean, who has actively opposed the Iraq war from the start, will galvanize Republicans. But others see him as just what the party needs: an outspoken, courageous voice that does not bend to the winds of political change. Dean has proven an ability to build widespread, grass roots support, particularly through the Internet. Many Republican leaders have said they look forward to Dean leading the DNC. Many describe him as an angry, northern liberal -- a symbol of what many argue is "wrong" with the Democratic Party. "I think if (Democrats) have a true death wish, he'd be the perfect guy to go with," former House Majority Leader Newt Gingrich told Fox News last month. America needs an opposition party. I don't think the Dems under Dean can even remotely fit the bill. -=Mike The republicans are scared to death of Dean, and with good reason. Dean is a former Governor who: 1) Balanced the Budget every year and left a $10 million surplus in 2003 2) Holds multiple A-ratings from the NRA 3) pro-NAFTA 4) pro business over environment (as the son of a former executive for Dean-Witter) 5) Supported the first Gulf War (unlike Kerry), Somalia, Kosovo, Bosina, Afganistan 6) Started a school voucher program in Vermont 7) pro Death Penalty 8) cut welfare spending 9) Stephen Moore, the President of the right-wing Club for Growth, called Dean "a free-market enthusiast, a tax cutter, and an enemy of big-government excess." in early 2003 and said they had "finally found a Democrat [they] could work with." Yeah, he sure sounds like a real liberal to me. The Republicans will paint anyone as "too liberal" for the US because they've had great success with that frame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Which is why they're still stuck on the YAAAAAAAARGHDEANSCREAM~~! because they really can't attack him on his record. They'll just point at him and say LOOKIE, HE'S A LIBERAL FROM NEW ENGLAND! ELITIST! FAR LEFT! and hope people will buy it. There's really nothing for the GOP to attack Dean on other than being someone who's an actual Democrat instead of a mushy Junior Republican flippy-flopper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 No. We're scared of Dean b/c he yells and shrieks at his supporters. We're a quiet people. (That's a joke.) Dean's not the one who is running, BTW. People seem to be missing that. He's a figurehead, and that's about where it ends. He's right that the Democratic party needs to be more then just opposition to the Republicans. Now- good luck trying to find that identity. Anywho- I'm surprised I'm even responding to what someone who loves Michael Moore is saying, but... #1 If you call 55-60% total American turnout "incredibly high," you're the one who is delusional, my friend. Spend some time outside of the US, you'll see just who shitty our elections really are. #2 You really don't understand how many people hate Hillary Clinton. Voter turnout was bigger (not by much) this year b/c people loved/hated Bush. Like I said elsewhere, Hillary is one of the most divisive characters in American political history. Republicans and Dems alike would come out to shoot that bitch down. Republicans hate her, and so do a lot of Dems. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Once again. You're missing the point. We don't have to attack Dean's record- and I agree, it'd be tough to. But he's not the one running!!! He's the chair of the committee, whoopie! Good for him! You won't convince me that part of him being named chair is b/c people feel bad that the media blew his little scream out of proportion. I'm not worried. I'm sure the Democrats will do what they always do, and that is nominate the guy that can lose to the smallest possible margin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I think the GOP really overestimates the Hilary Hate. Sure, THEY hate her but she has good approval numbers in NY, and polls have her beating anyone the GOP can throw at her in 2006. This idea that there's lots of people on both sides who hate her is just wishful thinking. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I think the GOP really overestimates the Hilary Hate. Sure, THEY hate her but she has good approval numbers in NY, and polls have her beating anyone the GOP can throw at her in 2006. This idea that there's lots of people on both sides who hate her is just wishful thinking. Good approval in NY? Weird. Almost like NY is a liberal state, and she's their Senator... Sorry. That was mean. But still- we need another Clinton like we need a hole in the head. (I'd say the same thing about the Bush's if Jeb ran, btw) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Anywho- I'm surprised I'm even responding to what someone who loves Michael Moore is saying, but... Congratulations on missing the joke. #1 If you call 55-60% total American turnout is "incredibly high," you're the one who is delusional, my friend. Spend some time outside of the US, you'll see just who shitty are elections really are. I'm talking about relative to the United States, stupid. What other context would I be using? 2004 had a disproportionately high evangelical vote. If the GOP runs Rudy, that advantage is virtually nullified. People simply aren't going to come out to vote like that for an adulterous divorcee. #2 You really don't understand how many people hate Hillary Clinton. Yeah, I really do. Voter turnout was bigger (not by much) this year b/c people loved/hated Bush. If you want to be overly simplistic, knock yourself out. Like I said elsewhere, Hillary is one of the most divisive characters in American political history. Republicans and Dems alike would come out to shoot that bitch down. Republicans hate her, and so do a lot of Dems. Not really. As Sek was saying, she isn't even remotely as divisive as Republicans want her to be. With that being said, though, she's not going to run anyways, so what's the point of the conversation? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Turnout wasn't as big as everyone thinks it was. Higest estimates are 60%, when typically its 53-55%. Still not "incredibly high" in any context. Hillary isn't running, Rudy isn't running, and neither is Dean. Oh, forgive me for using shorthand. Last I checked this was a forum, not a term paper. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Turnout wasn't as big as everyone thinks it was. Higest estimates are 60%, when typically its 53-55%. Still not "incredibly high" in any context. Your estimates are 60% of registered voters. More people also registered to vote this year. By record numbers. ... What about this are you not getting? Turnout was EXTREMELY high this year. Hillary isn't running, Rudy isn't running, and neither is Dean. You might wanna tell Rudy that. Oh, forgive me for using shorthand. Last I checked this was a forum, not a term paper. Since I was ignoring your b/c!!! nonsense, I'd re-read my response and think of any other way it could be interpreted! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 13, 2005 Well, one last thing, per CNN. Election turnout for 1996- 94,686,514 Election turnout for 2000- 105,326,325 (Up by 11% from 1996) Election turnout for 2004- 118,304,480 (Up by 12% from 2000) Incredibly high turnout? It grew a whole 1% more in 2004 then it did in 2000. Giving you the advantage that percentages change with larger numbers, the total vote count went up by about 11 million in 2000, 13 million in 2004. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 13, 2005 I think the GOP really overestimates the Hilary Hate. Sure, THEY hate her but she has good approval numbers in NY, and polls have her beating anyone the GOP can throw at her in 2006. This idea that there's lots of people on both sides who hate her is just wishful thinking. Hillary combined Bill's negatives with virtually none of his positives. Why anybody expects her to win is lost on me? Oh, and putting faith in polls that are 100% speculative is ridiculous. I suppose a Hillary run would kill off ANOTHER long-held Dem canard. You know, after the "high turnout equals a Dem win" canard died in November. -=Mike ...And, Tyler, Rudy has pretty much no shot at winning the nomination for the GOP... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Mike, who do you think the nominee is gonna be? (I'm actually asking an honest question; I'm curious who you think) I don't think America is ready to elect a black woman, to be honest; I don't think Rice would win the nomination. But is that who you think will win it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 There are those that say Dean isn't as far left as he is portrayed, and it's mostly because of his stance on the war in Iraq that he's viewed as an ultra-liberal. Didn't he have top approval from the NRA? His job is to raise money, something he is very good at. Aside from policy wonks, who is going to vote or not vote for the Democrats based on whether or not Dean is the DNC chair? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boon 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Aside from policy wonks, who is going to vote or not vote for the Democrats based on whether or not Dean is the DNC chair? Exactly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Mike, who do you think the nominee is gonna be? (I'm actually asking an honest question; I'm curious who you think) I don't think America is ready to elect a black woman, to be honest; I don't think Rice would win the nomination. But is that who you think will win it? I don't have a freakin' clue why Mike keeps going on and on about Rice getting the nomination. Say what you will about Rudy and whatever faults he may have, he is approximately 3,400 times more likely to get the nom than Rice. America isn't ready to elect a WOMAN, period, to the presidency, let alone a BLACK woman. Let's be brutally honest, here - how many of those "red states" do you think will be ready and willing to vote for a black woman to lead the nation? Shit, I'm a conservative, but I have to say she doesn't have a shot in hell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 I think it will be Frist with either McCain or Rudy as the VP. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 The GOP nominee will be a newcomer from Parts Unknown, the Masked Republican, who some suspect is merely President Bush under a mask. The Democrats will nominate somebody who doesn't quite satisfy anybody. It'll be a slobberknocker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Mike, who do you think the nominee is gonna be? (I'm actually asking an honest question; I'm curious who you think) I don't think America is ready to elect a black woman, to be honest; I don't think Rice would win the nomination. But is that who you think will win it? Tyler, I've said Condi Rice for a while now. I'm sticking with that pick all the way. Giuliani can NOT win a national election --- he's much stronger as an endorser than a candidate. Frist is fine, but I don't think he has the charisma to pull it off. Rice has been my pick for well over a year now. I stick with it. I think she's insanely electable and I honestly don't see a Dem who can beat her. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Call me a OMG LIBERAL ELITIST~! but I just don't see the deep red states voting for a black woman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Call me a OMG LIBERAL ELITIST~! but I just don't see the deep red states voting for a black woman. I won't call you a lib. Just somebody who is living in the past and doesn't understand the south whatsoever. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest sek69 Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Yeah, I forgot the south is so progressive these days. What was I thinking? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted February 14, 2005 Yeah, I forgot the south is so progressive these days. What was I thinking? Do you REALLY want to get into a "Which part of the country has fewer racial problems" argument? The northeast won't measure up well. -=Mike ...And, if you read the article, you'd have noticed that some people were afraid of possible tax problems due to the bill's passage... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites