Reply #52: Democrats won all those races in '06 [View All]

[LWolf]

because people were fed up with Bush and wanted to see his messes cleaned up.

Note the approval ratings drop since then, in response to the non-action on the part of party leaders:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/06/war_focus_creates_drag_on_demo.html

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27937

Ignoring people's dissatisfaction is not exactly a winning tactic.

You can doubt all you want; that doesn't make it untrue. What would be the smarter thing to do? To discount the warning signs, or to listen and respond?

The real problem? The Democratic Party is losing the trust of many Democratic voters. Not all of them, of course. There are plenty of people left who think the party is doing just fine. Will it be enough to carry the vote in the general election, if one of the top 3 is nominated? I don't honestly know. Maybe.

Is maybe good enough? If there are Democrats that are turned off enough by some candidates to abstain, should they be the nominee? Is it worth dividing the party and losing general election votes to put one of those candidates on the ballot? Maybe.

I see trouble ahead. My mom is my "canary," and she is not alone. I guess I could just sit back and allow it to play out, and watch the party implode in '08. Instead, I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. I guess that was a bad idea, since the only extended discussion has been with you, and your efforts to "debunk" what other people see, hear, think, and feel. You have yet to offer a solution, and you obviously don't think we ought to be paying attention to those warning signs, so the conversation has been pretty pointless.