I think the reason so many Republicans are saying the Dems will win

[1932]

(like Bill Kristol) is because they're trying to build up expectations so that whatever happens on Tuesday (short of the predicted huge victories), Republicans can say Democrats didn't meet expectations and therefore lost.

If the Republicans squeak by, Republicans win. If Democrats squeak by, Republicans win. The only way Democrats win is if they beat the 1 in 100 odds of a wide margin of victory in the house and senate.

That was their debate strategy in '00 -- they made it sound like Gore was some kind of debating genius so that when Gore was only just good (and better than Bush), it was a victory for Bush.

It's all about perception and momentum toward '08.

So don't fall for the high expectations trap.

Just work hard and anything Democrats get on Tuesday is a blessing.

[ChiciB1]

1. I'm Ignoring Them For The Most Part... Tony Snow Is One Weird

"prop" and he seems to be "all the rage" with them these days! Oh Tony, you're getting SNOWED!!

We need to keep our focus and get the job done, even IF it isn't as big as the polls or media types are saying... we just need to GOTV and not let our guard down!!

Go, Go, Go... last week-end and I'll be out there stumping to rid myself of Cruella Harris by trying to trump her with a Democratic REPLACEMENT!! And Jim Davis too, and David Shapiro and anyone else that needs me!

Lots going on, will be phone banking tomorrow, and Bob Graham is coming on Sunday with Jim Davis. Busy, busy, busy!

[Infinite Hope]

5. Snow likes snowballing and getting snowballed. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

2. No, what the Democrats get on Tuesday ...

... will be the result of hard work, being on the right side of the issues, and representing what American voters want to see changed in the aftermath of the failed BushCo-neocon nightmare.

When the Democrats win, they WIN. If the Republicans want to salve their wounds by framing it as some kind of false victory for themselves, they can do so - only silently, because America is no longer listening.

[1932]

6. I agree with the sentiment.

I totally believe that Democrats will get what the work for and will have earned what they get on Tuesday.

But I do believe that perception matters. If it didn't, then I think more people would have voted for Gore in 2000. Do you remember the debates? Republicans said for a week before the debates "Gore is going to kill us. He's a master debater." Do you remember the perception after the debates? "Bush did much better than expected. Gore didn't do so well."

If the Republicans salve their wonds by saying that Democrats didn't do as well as expected, and the media plays that up, the Democrats could lose momentumm they've earned.

If you don't want to just win '06, and you want to keep building momentum, and be percieved as building upon strengths rather than failing to meet expectations, I think you need to comprehend the Repubican strategy here.

[NanceGreggs]

8. Winning this election is its own strength, and its own momentum.

Less than a year ago, this election was already considered to be 'in the bag' for the GOP. And yet here we are, the perceived 'underdogs', on a winning streak across the country.

I really don't give a flyin' fuck how the Republicans 'perceive' this, how they spin it, or how much lipstick they put on the pig.

As for how the media decides to spin it, I can only point to the fact that the media have been non-stop cheerleaders for the GOP for six years now -- and it hasn't stopped the Dems from pulling ahead in spite of that fact.

The Republican strategy? I believe their strategy was to win the mid-terms and retain power. Isn't working out very well for them, is it?

Even the neocons are busy deserting the sinking BushCo ship today. The WH, this administration, and their dwindling supporters are no longer framing the discussion or the perception. Nobody listens to the loser.

[1932]

10. Gore beating Bush in the debates should have given him momentum

But the Republicans built Gore up so much that there was no way he could come out of it looking like a winner, even if he won.

All I'm saying is that if you're in the unlikely position of being on a talk show with Bill Kristol before Tuesday and Kristol is saying Democrats will win by wide margins, the way to respond is, "Bill, I think the polls are closer thany you think and we Democrats are going to have to get out there and keep working and earning votes by giving people our arguments for why Democrats are better for the foreign and domestic challenges that confront our country. We know we're on the good side of this fight, but we also know we have to work every second until Tuesday to earn victories in the Senate, House, in state houses, and everywhere else."

I don't think Republicans could spin that framework against Democrats the same way they could spin, say, with this: "they were supposed to win 20 seats in Congress. It looks like a lot of people turned against them towards the end, and we think more people will turn against them as they realize the truth about these people."

And, as I keep saying, if Democrats were smarter about perceptions, Gore might have done better in 2000 and we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

[NanceGreggs]

13. I hate to drag out a tired old axiom ...

... but it seems too appropriate not to say it: That was then, this is now.

In 2000, after eight prosperous years under Clinton, the country looked at the election (to all of our detriment) as a chance to hand over the reins of power to whoever they thought the 'cutest' guy was. It was a popularity contest, not a serious look at who could better lead the nation. "Hmm, do you want the wooden but intelligent guy, or the down-home aw-shucks guy?"

That was when no one, especially the GOP voters, could possibly conceive of the fact that all of the gains won during the Clinton years - in terms of a good economy, a surplus, our world standing as peacemakers, etc. - could possibly be undone so quickly, and so dramatically.

Six very sad years later, they know better. The Republicans have nothing to show for their years of control - unless you count an unwinnable war, a sinking economy, loss of world respect, escalating debt, a crumbing infrastructure, job losses ... need I go on?

This election is not a matter of picking the guy or gal you think will look good in the photo-ops as your state's representative. It's about CHANGING COURSE. It's about steering the ship of state AWAY from the iceberg, not towards it full-speed-ahead.

At this stage of the game, 'perception' is not what counts. It's ACTION - and the GOP, having now had complete control for several years, have proven that the only action they are capable of is disaster in every aspect of governance.

As the polls are showing, the 'perception' is that the Democrats will succeed where the Republicans have consistently failed.

[1932]

14. The pre-debate Republican strategy in '00 is not historically specific.

Raising expectations for your opponent is a timeless strategy for pulling victory from the jaws of defeat.

[NanceGreggs]

16. Yeah. Funny thing is ...

... the Republicans are 'raising expectations for their opponent' by actually losing.

Or is it your theory that they're deliberately behind in the polls because they want to be?

[1932]

17. They were behind before the debate and the lost the debate, but they won

the perception war afterward which allowed them to keep the momentum moving toward election day.

Nance, you can play offense AND still play defense in the perception battle. It's not mutually exclusive. And it's smart.

Also, I'm not clear what you're arguing.

Let's say, hypothetically, that you were being interviewed with Bill Kristol on Tuesday night and you know that democrats are ahead but close in a lot of races and Kristol goes into his Democrats are going to win by a mile routine. What do you say?

WE SURE ARE!!! By a MILE!!!

[Clark2008]

23. I totally get what you're saying, but Bush "cuter" than Gore!?!

Who in their right (correct) mind could EVER think Bush was "cuter" than Gore???

[Imalittleteapot]

3. They are trying to get their sheep out to vote.

Their usual issues aren't playing that well, and their hope for an Iraq win is gloomy, so tell them they're going to loose at the polls and they'll be out for sure, just like we would. On the other hand, some Dems may not go to the polls because the GOP is building their expectation of a DEM win.

[NanceGreggs]

7. The GOP is not "building an expectation of a Dem win" ...

... the polls are predicting an imminent Democratic sweep based on the NUMBERS, not on what the GOP thinks.

I don't know of a single Democrat who is being lulled into not voting, and I doubt there are any.

[1932]

9. The Democrat's biggest advantage is in nationwide preference polls.

But when you go state by state and district by district (especially, the incumbant-proofed congressional districts), it's a different story. The Demorcrats have narrow leads, which is great. But it's nothing like the nationwide preference polls.

I personally know Dems who hear Kristol say the Democrats are going to win and think that they don't need to phone bank this weekend because of it.

So, I do agree that another part of this is that Republicans are trying to lull voters into a false sense of complanceny.

[NanceGreggs]

11. The Republicans are not in control of this situation.

They are still out campaigning, spending money, predicting they're going to pull a rabbit out of the hat in the next few days.

The Republicans are LOSING - that's not a strategy; that's just a fact.

[1932]

12. Kristol has a lot of control and a lot of power when he goes on TV and

starts talking about how well Democrats are going to do.

I've seen enough of him to know that he's not doing Democrats a favor.

And, furthermore, I smell a huge whiff of the 2000 Bush-Gore debates when his mouth is open and he's talking about how strong Democrats are.

And even furthermore, like I said, I think the blowout perception is coming from nationwide generic preference polls that don't reflect what's going on on the ground. The Democrats are slighly up many places where they didn't think they would be in the lead a couple weeks ago. But that's not the kind of guaranteed blowout some Republicans are talking about.

[NanceGreggs]

15. What's that got to do with anything?

"That's not the kind of guaranteed blowout some Republicans are talking about."

Again, I don't CARE what the Republicans are talking about. Just a matter of months ago, they were talking about this election being a 'guaranteed blowout' for their side. Big blowout or just-made-it -- who cares? A win is a win; a majority is a majority.

As for Bill Kristol, just because you and I know who he is doesn't mean the average voter knows who he is. Besides, if you've read the latest from Kristol and PNAC boys, they're distancing themselves from BushCo big time - the fiasco in Iraq was never their idea, to hear them tell it now. Bush got carried away with himself and fucked the whole thing up. There have even been off-the-record reports from WH insiders that Karl "The Omnipotent" Rove is already blaming this election's loss on the GOP candidates for not following his detailed plans down to the letter.

Sorry, but I am tired of allowing the Republicans to frame every discussion to their own advantage. They can cry all the way back to oblivion after-the-fact. Like I said, if they want to spin their losses as some kind of nonsensical victory, let them.

Once the ten-count is over and you're still lying on the canvass, the crowd doesn't care if you got put down by a hundred strategic blows or one lucky shot - all they know is you lost the match. And they're too busy cheering the winner to really care why or by what margin.

[1932]

18. Do you think Democrats really have Republicans on their back at this moment?

I thought Democrats had Republicans on their backs in '00 and in '04. Well, I thought they had a good chance of winning, anyway.

I'm still not clear exactly what you're arguing (see my last post).

[NanceGreggs]

19. There's where we differ (perhaps) ...

I didn't think we had the GOP on their backs in '00 or '04 - I thought we would win, but I didn't see it as a slam-dunk (you'll pardon the expression). And that was then, this is now - you can't discount the changes that have happened, domestically and internationally, since then.

As for: "Let's say, hypothetically, that you were being interviewed with Bill Kristol on Tuesday night and you know that democrats are ahead but close in a lot of races and Kristol goes into his Democrats are going to win by a mile routine. What do you say?"

What I would say is: "Whether the Democrats win by a mile or by a fraction of an inch is of no consequence - as long as they win. And that is now in the hands of the American people."

I would add (because I'm a bitch): "And while we're here, Bill, let me ask you how that PNAC plan of taking over the Middle East is going - you know, that thing where establishing democracy in Iraq is a cakewalk, and we move on from there? Have the Iraqis named that public square in Baghdad after Bush yet, just like you predicted they would -- what was it you said, within a year of the invasion? Hey, just for laughs, let's reminisce about that time your fellow PNACer, Wolfowitz, said this entire Iraq thing would cost less than one billion, tops! Man, was that off the mark, or what?"

[fuzzyball]

4. Please everybody refrain from counting our chickens before Nov 8th

Then, we can celebrate. We don't need another "Dewey" moment.

[TankLV]

20. Actually, they made it sound like bunkerboy was a COMPLETE idiot

so when he managed to get thru the debates without pukeing or falling down in a shit stained heap, he did "masterfully" by comparison to THEIR "lowered expectations"...

[1932]

21. That's what I'm saying. Lower expections and you can pick up momentum

even if you lose. And that's what I think people like Kristol are trying to do.

[Clark2008]

22. In other words, I need to send out a faux email saying that

the KKK is resurging in Tennessee (they've really not been a presence in years having moved on to the mid-West) and is having a HUGE statewide rally on Nov. 7 beginning at 5 p.m. on the grounds of the state capital and ending at 8 p.m.

That will keep the majority of the racists away from the voting booth during peak voting times (after work) on Tuesday, so they can't vote for that nasal-sounding, rubber-stamping wimp Corker.

:evilgrin:

[election_2004]

24. I partially agree....

But I think they're trying to lower expectations for themselves nationwide, so they can stage some miraculous "upsets" for themselves in the close races (via Diebold). They're vocally positioning themselves as the underdogs, so they can minimize their net loss of statewide/congressional/senate seats.