Do you people have freaking amnesia?

[Clintonista2]

If I hear one more person on DU imply that we're going to beat Mccain with ease, I'm going to puke. While I did not post on DU in 2004, I did begin lurking shortly after the primaries. I seem to recall (not only on DU, but in various left wing outlets), the general attitude being: "There's no way Bush is going to win! He's a moron!" Now we have "There's no way Mccain is going to win! He's boring!"

It amazes me that even after a war, an economic crisis, and numerous other problems, so many of you simply don't learn.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It is important never to underestimate one's adversary.

We can't become complacent. Always act as if you are the underdog.

[babylonsister]

2. Are you part of the problem or the solution? Calling people out can

be considered a problem. Have you posted anything definitive to enlighten us besides your opinion?

[Clintonista2]

6. As you mentioned, calling out can be considered a problem

I will gladly provide you with examples via PM, if you wish.

[babylonsister]

9. About beating McSame? I'd love to read them. That IS what you're

talking about?

[Clintonista2]

12. I'm talking about the cockiness

About what a "landslide" 2008 will be. The same attitude that contributed to the 2004 defeat.

[ladjf]

19. The totally corrupt election process in Ohio tipped the scales

in favor of Bush. That wasn't a matter of overconfidence. It was about criminality on the part of the Republicans particularly the Attorney General Blackburn.

[Clintonista2]

21. 2004 should have been a LANDSLIDE

Enough to overwrite any GOP cheating. The belief that America would "never, ever, re-elect Bush," led us to make mistakes, at a time when we could NOT AFFORD to make mistakes.

[ladjf]

29. You have a valid point there. But, I don't think that over confidence

was the critical factor. I didn't think that Kerry was a very good candidate or that he ran a good campaign. He was not my choice but I voted for him because he was the Democratic candidate. He allowed the swift boaters to shoot him down without any effective rebuttal.

[CrispyQ]

77. I was an election judge in '04.

Our ballots were large with the presidential candidates in the upper left hand corner & the senate candidates directly below. At the end of the night we had to count the ballots, not the votes, the ballots, to make sure there were the same number of ballots as the number of people who had signed into the log book. While counting it was easy to scan down that left hand column & see who had been selected for president & senator. I was stunned at the number of ballots that had a check by boosh & a check by Salazar. Stunned. I'd made friends with one of the other judges during the day & she commented on it to me as we left the precinct - "Did you notice how many Salazar voters voted for Bush?"

I'm certain they stole '04, but like you said, it should have been a landslide.

[qwlauren35]

83. If Kerry or Gore...

had been winning by a LANDSLIDE, then the election could not have been stolen.

Here in American, I don't believe that you can steal an election unless it's already very close.

So, we NEED a landslide. Hopefully, we'll do the hard work to have one.

[babylonsister]

22. If YOU want to set an example, I'm all ears instead of you

telling everyone what is wrong with them and how this is being handled. Pls. post your links to McCain, his fuck-ups, and how to beat him. Thanks.

[Clintonista2]

24. Have fun in your bubble

I contribute by putting this election into perspective. If I could go back in time 20 minutes and say "Lirwin2, someone is going to attack you for asking DUers not to get cocky," your name would be the first that comes to mind, Babylonsister.

[babylonsister]

25. What, no links? WHAT a surprise! You ARE part of the problem. nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

28. Bwhahaha! CU? You're kiddin', right?

:rofl:

[kerry-is-my-prez]

36. The most dangerous attitude is one of over-confidence....

that's how great teams in sports lose - that's part of how Hillary lost.

[ProSense]

3. Don't confuse 2004 with 2008, and don't confuse

confidence with complacency.

No place for cockiness, but the Republicans are hurting.

[Terry_M]

4. We lost in 2004 because Kerry ran a shitty campaign

and if we lose 2008 vs. McCain it's because Obama will run a shitty campaign (turn it into an evil vs lesser evil campaign and end up with low turnout). He's already heading in that direction, so you may be right.

[ProSense]

5. Thanks for your inaccurate insight. n/t

[goldcanyonaz]

11. Or because voters did not show up on November 4th, many dont

[babylonsister]

18. You're misinformed. You should check out this section of DU...

lots of research has been done there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

You might have to donate to DU to inform yourself, if that's what you're actually interested in.

[rhett o rick]

74. Babylonsister, I have the greatest respect for you and I don't know this poster.

I will take your word that he/she is part of the problem. However, I was honestly devastated in 2004. There is enough blame to go around but one thing for sure, we underestimated the length the republicants were willing to go to to win. I am afraid if it happens again, the country will not recover in our lifetimes if ever. I believe we haven't seen nothing yet. We can not underestimate them again. I feel they might go as far as invading Iran, starting a race riot in a major city, maybe even worse. These are not rational people we are dealing with.
We need another 50 state strategy to get out the vote. We need to aggressively go after the positions of each and every one of the republicants up for reelection. We need to get control of all voting machines.

I would be interested in what you think the tripping point might be. When will the general public recognize that we have a fascist dictator running this country.

[LakeSamish706]

23. Nope to all of your post... We lost because they stole the ellection...

Just like 2000... Yeah don't stand a chance against touch screens if the programmer can manipulate the code in one candidates favor... Again, I don't know why the Democrats in control have not been making this a priority since Nov 2206.

[mtnsnake]

39. Most pathetic campaign ever. Frustrating beyond belief. n/t

[ProSense]

56. Wasn't there a recent campaign

in which the candidate lost the primary and ended up $30 million in debt, the largest in history?

Focus on the 2008 election and the current Democratic nominee.

[goldcanyonaz]

67. and this has what to do with the topic at hand?

[mtnsnake]

79. The haters always have to make it about the Clintons even though it has nothing to do with the topic

They still can't admit how pathetic a presidential candidate John Kerry was. Yeah the guy is an excellent Democrat, a fine senator, and a war hero, but what a horrible campaigner he was. Let's pray he isn't one of Obama's campaign advisers this year or we'll once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[politicasista]

75. Thank you

People just love tearing Kerry (and Obama, others) down for the fun of it. :boring:

[goldcanyonaz]

82. And others love tearing apart Clinton for the fun of it, Kerry did lose

Gore won, Kerry did not

[mtnsnake]

78. Did that candidate you're referring to lose to an imbecile & the worst president in history?

No, she didn't, and no, she wasn't the presidential candidate either. Or did you forget that?

Nice try

[WhiteTara]

58. er, well, actually,

it was stolen. but it was a shitty campaign and we weren't really that behind him, either...except that we voted for him.

[napi21]

7. Anyone who says this election is a cake walk is nuts! There is ONE

things to the Dems advantage this time though. Shrub's polling numbers are really terrible! 25% or less! That's a good indicator that a lot of people will be voting for the opposite of what exists. I don't thing we can rest on our laurels, but I think there's a much better chance of a large Dem victory in 2008 than there was before.

[TBF]

8. Living in Texas teaches me not to be complacent.

So even though I am optimistic, I am going to work hard for Obama.

[goldcanyonaz]

10. Kerry was kicking Bushs ass at this time in 2004, I still can not believe that he lost

Gore did win 2000, but Kerry lost 2004, I still want to know where my Ohio recount donations went???

[blondeatlast]

13. It will NOT be an easy win for us; there's an added societal factor that we can't really

estimate and people will lie on the phone.

McSame is running a really bad campaign. Nevertheless, Republicans will turn out in droves to vote against ANY Democrat, they always do.

Part of confidence is realizing you aren't perfect.

[FrenchieCat]

14. So maybe if we weren't so busy kicking the ass of our own,

we could get started on McCain.

I'm there.

Cause you are correct, nothing is easy, and neither will this be.

But if so many of us are busy teaching on own lessons, we will lose.

It's called taking your eyes off the prize.

[Clintonista2]

16. Considering the nastiness of the primaries

I don't think we're "kicking the ass of our own" half as much as I expected we would. And I think that if we walk around just assuming that it's going to be a Dem landslide, then we DO take our eyes off the prize. Nothing contributes to defeat more than overconfidence.

[silverweb]

15. I posted similarly earlier today.

We may well have a Democratic sweep in November... but there are two major conditions:

(1) We don't get complacent with reports of GOP despair and polls favoring the Democrats, but continue to work our asses off and take no district for granted.

(2) We all VOTE and help GOTV, anticipating and counteracting voter suppression and intimidation tactics from the reTHUGs and RW 527s, as well as vote tampering.

Our Democratic victories in November must be so sweeping and so decisive that NO amount of election fraud or attempted suppression will be sufficient to bring the outcome into question.

My greatest fear is that we get complacent and lazy, and voter turnout isn't big enough to counteract anticipated reTHUG dirty tricks.

Thanks for the reminder, Lirwin. We need to keep hammering this point home.

[Super Soaker Sniper]

17. I only get amnesia

when I borrow money! :)

I really have no faith in these polls that have Obama too far ahead. Too early in the campaign for one thing and another, too many in the press are just as impressed with Obama as everyone else. I am sure that they are not purposely stacking the polls, but I can see it happen. I have noticed some journalists being less than objective and some projection (unintended, I am sure) is possible. Nothing negative can come from treating this as a close contest.

[Blondiegrrl]

20. Yeah, it's frustrating.

Certainly we should all be fired up and excited about Obama. I think the odds are in his favor. But we should never get complacent. ANYTHING could happen between now and Election Day.

[Colobo]

27. We will fight hard, and we will win.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. No candidate running in such an unfavorable environment as McCain has EVER been successful, EVER

That's not to say this couldn't be the first time ever. It is certainly possible that John McCain could for some unforeseen reason shatter all the patterns and trends of the history of presidential elections and be the first, it simply to say that it would be unprecedented and unlikely.

Still I would have to agree that it is always unwise to underestimate ones opponent. And it is always unwise to insist that the unprecedented and highly unlikely cannot happen.

Here is an interesting article on exactly that point by Dr. Alan Abramowitz of Emory University:

Can McCain Overcome the Triple Whammy?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/can_mccain_overcome_the_triple_whammy

" Polls in the spring of 1988 showed Michael Dukakis with a comfortable lead over George H.W. Bush and polls in June of 1992 showed Bill Clinton running third behind both Bush and H. Ross Perot. So recent polls showing a close race between McCain and Obama may not tell us much about what to expect in November.

Instead of using early horserace polls, political scientists generally rely on measures of the national political climate to make their forecasts. That is because the national political climate can be measured long before the election and it has been found to exert a powerful influence on the eventual results.

Three indicators of the national political climate have accurately predicted the outcomes of presidential elections since the end of World War II: the incumbent president's approval rating at mid-year, the growth rate of the economy during the second quarter of the election year, and the length of time the president's party has held the White House. "

"The Electoral Barometer has predicted the winner of the popular vote in 14 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. There were five elections in which the Electoral Barometer was negative and the president's party lost the popular vote in all five of these elections: 1952, 1960, 1976, 1980, and 1992. There were ten elections in which the Electoral Barometer was positive, and the president's party won the popular vote in nine of these elections: 1948, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1984, 1988, 1996, 2000, and 2004. "

"The current national political climate is one of the worst for the party in power since the end of World War II. No candidate running in such an unfavorable political environment – Republican or Democrat - has ever been successful. "

"Dr. Alan Abramowitz is the Alben W. Barkely Professor of Political Science at Emory University, and the author of Voice of the People: Elections and Voting Behavior in the United States."

link to full article:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/can_mccain_overcome_the_triple_whammy

[Clintonista2]

32. Oh ok

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. this is NOT a comparable case .. AT ALL

From the article:

"These three factors can be combined to produce an Electoral Barometer score that measures the overall national political climate. The formula for computing this score is simply the president's net approval rating (approval minus disapproval) in the Gallup Poll plus five times the annual growth rate of real GDP minus 25 if the president's party has held the White House for two terms or longer. Mathematically, this formula can be written as: EB = NAR + (5*GDP) - 25.

In theory, the Electoral Barometer can range from -100 or lower to +100 or higher with a reading of zero indicating a neutral political climate. In practice, Electoral Barometer readings for the fifteen presidential elections since the end of World War II have ranged from -66 in 1980 to +82 in 1964. A positive Electoral Barometer reading generally predicts victory for the incumbent party while a negative reading generally predicts defeat."

Truman's score in 1948 based on this formula was +4.5

McCains score this year based on this forumula is -63

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_alan_i_abramowitz/can_mccain_overcome_the_triple_whammy

Again this is NOT to say it is impossible. It is to say that it would be unprecidented and higly unlikely.

And I ABSOLUTELY agree that it would be very foolish to mistake the unlikely for the impossible. And at the very least there is no reason to allow a simple win when a landslide is well within reach.

[grantcart]

41. this article has been eaten up by conservative pundits

they found it very convincing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. I have not found one serious political scientist across the spectrum who does not think that

Sen. Obama will probably win. That is not to say they count Sen. McCain out, of course not.

The Prediction Markets are getting their cues from somewhere:


http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/misc/charts/

[grantcart]

43. Do you have a chance to see phrgndumass's daily and weekly

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6417769

analysis?

the link is for Friday.

its a really small group that seems to follow it but his work is really good.

We invented a Dow Jones equivalent that we call the Wigand Electoral Index that incorporates polls and then 12 swing states that use intrade.

You should join our little discussion group every day.

You can see his weekly report in his journal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

44. thanks, I was following it closely for awhile..I'll have to get back to it

Of course, less anyone misunderstand. Of course it is well within the range of possibility that Sen. McCain could win. It is just unlikely, that's all. Still there is no reason whatsoever to be complacent.

And this year we have a real opportunity to see the first Democratic landslide since 1964, although it probably will not be on that scale.

There is a real opportunity this year to not simply win, but to really bury the Right - thus setting the political climate for real progressive change.

We see a lot of discussion about who is the real Sen. Obama, the progressive of his earlier years or the center-left/third-way centrist of more recent times. I suspect a President Obama who simply wins will be the center-left/third-way centrist. A President Obama by a landslide or at least a mandate is far more likely to be the progressive Presidency we have all been longing for.

[helderheid]

31. Let me be the third to rec this thread, and to say I am totally wide awake - it MUST NOT be close

enough to steal, or steal it they will. Remember 2000, 2002, 2004, but also remember 2006. Fuck you Karl Rove and your math.

DO NOT LET IT BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO STEAL.

[KaryninMiami]

40. Thank you. My sentiments exactly-- we have not had a legitimate election since before 2000

AND we still have PLENTY of states voting on DRE's this year AND they've already started by permitting states to require photo IDs and we need a landslide. Period. AND we'd better not go nuke Iran beforehand either. I just don't seen them relinquishing power very easily- not after all the've done these past years maintain and build it up (while destroying our constitution).

I'm hopeful- every once in a while I find myself almost getting--- excited-- but then reality sets in and I remember the criminals we are running against and how disappointed (and horrified and outraged) I was the last 3 times and how much I've learned during this period about all the ways they could steal it -- and...

You know the song by heart, my friend.

I'm still doing my best to remain hopeful. What an amazing opportunity we would have with President Obama...


Sigh.

[helderheid]

55. I certainly do know the song. *sigh*

:hug: I sometimes get excited too - a nervous hopeful excitement but it's clouded by the reality of these criminals.

[Arkana]

34. Bush's campaign was a very tight ship.

People were enthusiastic about him.

His campaign did not make the mistakes that McCain is making.

[HughMoran]

35. Bush was an incumbant and Kerry, unlike Obama, didn't defend himself and acted aloof

Trust me, this time IS different.

[politicasista]

72. Yep. Let's tear down Obama's surrogate to promote him

Also thanks for the right wing Rovian talking points. There are people that have been posting the facts since 2004 saying that Kerry DID defend himself. But keep believing the media spin and letting the Democratic Party that should have done the heavy lifting off the hook.

2008 is NOT 2004. Big difference is that Obama has surrogates like Kerry and others playing the role that Democrats should have played for Kerry in 04. And Obama's speeches are getting media coverage, while Kerry's responses were never covered and buried.

Me chooses to read facts not believe media spin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3538728&mesg_id=3538728

[mtnsnake]

37. Excellent point, Lirwin2. The worst mistake we could make is to underestimate McCain

I saw the way McCain picked Romney apart limb by limb and sent him scampering like a little child. Not only did he pick him apart but he mocked Romney's ass until he practically had him in tears. McCain will not be a pushover and has his act together, despite what the overconfident people around here think. At least Obama understands this and should be ready for him.

[Alameda]

38. I was amazed Bush got ANY votes at all in 2000,

but he did. He got enough votes in 04 to get by "whatever" happened. We can not be too sure. We must not be too sure. We have to act and think like our lives depend on this election, because it does.

[musicblind]

45. Great post!

We need to fight like we are down 10 points and will NEVER win this thing. That's how you make sure you win. Part of why Hillary lost is that she was too confident. I love Hillary, but it was a flaw in her campaign. Obama seems to realize how hard he has to work for this (that's a good thing) but we all as his supporters need to work just as hard as well. I don't think the people on DU are going to be the problem though. I think everyone here will work their butts off for this. I think it's going to be the more casual supporters who hear all of the polls in the news and go "oh, well if he's gonna win by THAT big of a landslide then I'm sure he'll do just fine on his own." That's where the problem lies.

[Major Hogwash]

46. No amnesia here, Lirwin.

They passed out "purple heart bandaids" at the Republican National Convention in 2004.
They dishonored the medal that signifies that a soldier (sailor, airman, or Marine) has been wounded in combat.
They dishonored the entire military and every single man or woman that served in the military at the RNC in 2004.

But, you didn't hear much about it from the mainstream media, did ya?
Tom "Fuck face" Brokaw sure as hell didn't talk about it the next night on his nightly news program, did he?
Dan Rather didn't have much to say about it either, did he?
Nor the late Peter Jennings.

At the time of the 2004 election, the Buhs administration was still telling lies about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
At the time of the 2004 election, 1130 American men and women serving in the military had been killed while fighting in the Iraq War.

As of today, there have been zero(0) weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.
None whatsoever.
As of today, at the time of this post, 4113 American men and serving in the military women have been killed while fighting in the Iraq War.

But, you don't hear much about them from the mainstream media either.
The faces of prime time news have all changed, but the systematic ignoring of the Iraq War has not!!

[depakid]

47. Interesting article from truthdig (July 17, 2007)

McCain Campaign: Not Dead Yet

Even though Sen. John McCain is still walking and talking like a candidate, the nation’s political writers and pundits are hammering the final nails in his presidential campaign coffin and preparing to bury it in his Arizona desert.

“They never come back,” Robert Novak said Sunday on “Meet the Press.” “I think there is a 40 percent chance he gets out of this thing in the fall,” said fellow panelist Al Hunt. Host Tim Russert quoted this devastating comment from political analyst Charlie Cook: “Let’s have a moment of silence. The physicians have left the room and now it’s the executors of the will taking over.” In New York magazine, John Heilemann outdid Cook, writing, “Though it’s not impossible to conjure a narrative in which McCain wins the nomination, doing so requires half a bottle of Maker’s Mark, followed by a nitrous-oxide chaser.”

Not that a burial of McCain’s campaign is a bad idea. It’s appalling to contemplate McCain as president in view of his unstinting support of President Bush’s Iraq war and his pledge to increase the Army and Marines from the presently contemplated 750,000 to 900,000.

We don’t need a president who believes: “Democratic candidates for president will argue for the course of cutting our losses and walking away from the threat in the vain hope it will not follow us here. I cannot join in such wishful and very dangerous thinking.”

But don’t dismiss him. McCain remains the greatest threat to a Democratic victory next year. Believing the media analyses and writing McCain off now could be a big mistake.

More: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070717_mccain_campaign_not_dead_yet/

---------------

Something to consider (not that the neophytes will- they've not seen defeat snatched from the jaws of victory enough times (if they ever have at at all) so they don't recognize the danger.

[Hippo_Tron]

48. Obama is polling far better against McGramps than Bush ever was against Kerry

And unlike last time, Obama will be the one with more money and more resources.

I think people saying "there's no way" are too overconfident. McCain can erase Obama's lead overnight if he has a good convention.

But those suggesting that we are lacking party unity or that Obama is weak are very wrong. Obama could not possibly be starting this campaign off in much better shape than he is right now and McCain could not be worse off. Whether it continues that way remains to be seen.

[KoKo]

59. Can you trust the polls? Both Kerry and Gore were polled to win right

through election day. SURPRISE!!!!

[Hippo_Tron]

61. No they really weren't polled to win through election day

Bush/Kerry was neck and neck for most of the season with the only substantial lead being for Bush after the Republican National Convention. That lead disappeared after the debates but even then it was still dead even. My prediction was that 2004 was going to be another 2000 with recounts and everything because it would be so close.

And Bush/Gore was mostly the same way with the only substantial lead being for Bush before Al Gore's 20 point bounce at the Democratic National Convention (which tied the race, didn't put Gore in the lead).

If Obama's current numbers hold until October then I think we will win this thing. But I am not confident these numbers will hold.

[CreekDog]

49. i have freaking amnesia

i'm all hysterical but i can't remember why. :rant: :shrug:

[tomp]

50. i understand how a landslide might avoid election theft...

...but is a landslide good for progressives? i think an obama landslide will justify his "running to the right" and he will stay there. i also think, and it may seem contradictory to some, that an obama squeaker would be bad for progressives because obama will say he should have run more to the right.

if you want to get me interested in any of this, get obama to run to the left.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. I would tend to actually think the opposite

Would the New Deal or the Great Society have happened if FDR and LBJ had not won by landslides?

I highly doubt it.

In order to press ahead with controversial legislation, this would almost certainly require a sense of mandate to do so.

A landslide win would almost certainly send the Republican party into a state of utter disarray, infighting and recrimination thus greatly hindering their ability to mount a reactionary resistance.

I believe if one looks at Senator Obama's earlier career as a community organizer and an Illinois state senator, we see a real progressive. If we consider his own personal background, we see someone whose naturally impulses would tend toward the left. But he is also a career politician and that is where we see him tracking toward the right. A landslide win, I believe would grant him the free hand to follow his convictions. A narrow victory would tend to keep him "playing it safe" which is what he is doing now.

[tomp]

65. that argument works if you KNOW his true convictions.

frankly, I don't think a history as a community organizer is any real solid indication of current beliefs, especially when approaching the presidency. many "career politicians" start out that way and end up someplace else.

when obama equivocates about pursuing justice for the bush administrations crimes, and when he wants to "reach across the aisle" to the thugs who supported that criminal enterprise, I think all bets are off as to what he "really" believes.

for the record, I don't believe fdr was all he was cracked up to be, and johnson was a slime ball non pareill who was probably involved in the assassination of kennedy (at least the first one). i sure hope we're not going that route.

[Douglas Carpenter]

71. how ever lacking FDR or LBJ were and however inadequate the New Deal and the Great

Society may have been - they were still the greatest leaps forward in progressive domestic legislation of the 20th Century. And they both came after Democratic landslides. There has never been sweeping social changes following elections in which the Democrats just barely won.

Equally important, it is absolutely vital to bring an end to the particular brand of right-wing ideology as a dominant force in the American body politic. There is now a possibility of an opportunity to do this. This is not to say that there will be no more conservatives and no more right-wingers - but a number of credible political historians and analyst who see the particular brand that more or less originated from the Buckley movement, began to organize with the Goldwater campaign and rose to power with Reagan - this particular movement may very well have lost its ability to coalesce and may very well be coming to an end. A landslide defeat of the Republican Party this year could very well seal its doom.

This does not necessarily mean that sweeping progressivism will then dominate. But it could very well fundamentally alter the parameters of discussion and fundamentally expand the range of debate and change the political culture.

[tomp]

76. you see sweeping social change....

...i see bones thrown to avoid out and out rebellion, said bones being whittled away over time with further corporate control of government. just biding their time, in essence.

electing obama will decidedly NOT alter fundamental corporate/imperialist policies. there is zero chance that a democrat running to the center can do that. unfortunately that makes obama pretty useless.

if it's not the republican, party it will something equally insidious in another form. frankly, i think your prognosis for the repubs is way premature. frankly, again, i'm just as concerned about the democrats and their failure to oppose the republicans.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

68. So basically

If Obama wins in a landslide it's bad, according to you. And if he wins in a squeaker, it's also bad.

:crazy:

[saltpoint]

51. I think we should actually work harder than ever to win both by a large

margin and expansively in states we ordinarily concede to the Pukes.

In politics, I think you play hard no matter what and that it's ok to run up the score.

[DFW]

52. Don't confuse cheerleading with analysis

There's no harm in some optimistic exuberance, but most posts with cold
rational analysis show an acute awareness that polls and common sense
are not enough to win this election. I have first-hand knowledge that
top Democrats (Howard Dean first and foremost) are only too well aware
that the Republicans will pull every dirty trick in the book, and no
doubt some new ones, to get McCain in. They are extremely apprehensive
that there will be another "surprise Republican upset victory," courtesy
of tried and proven methods of electoral fraud that worked so well for
them in the past.

There is one thing Republicans fear more than oil at $300, more than
a meteor wiping out Wall Street, more than global warming inundating
Miami and Key West, and more than an earthquake dropping half of
California into the Pacific. And that is................

The next Democratic Attorney General. Do you realize how many of the
ones now in power are looking at serious jail time if Obama appoints
an aggressive, dedicated Attorney General? They will do ANYTHING to
hinder that from happening. Anyone who thinks they are not already
planning stuff so evil, we can't even imagine it, is dreaming.

[salguine]

53. Thank God somebody else said this! I was starting to feel like

the lone voice in the wilderness.

And I'll say it again...If anyone thinks that this election won't be stolen, they're deluded. It will be. And, like before, no one will do anything about it. Say hello to President McCain!

[Zynx]

57. The 2008 environment is far more unfavorable for Republicans than 2004.

[tom_paine]

60. Yes, the subject populace of Imperial Amerika has TV-induced amnesia.

Add to that the utter denial about the strength of Bushie Voter Suppression Startegies, many now enshrined in Jeb Crow laws like Voter ID and Voter "proof of citizenship" laws, and yes, a lethal combinatio of denial, wishful-thinking, and the TV-induced amnesia that we all share to some degree.

K&R.

[windoe]

62. It is a trick

that has been used before, to feign weakness when really they are very very powerful. 'Kindler gentler' 'Compassionate conservatism' 'I am not a wimp.' Bush I tried to pretend he was weak, Reagan had his down home charm, and Bush Jr plays the idiot clown while their mission goes forward.
No, do not underestimate the Republicans based on who their front man is.

[rox63]

63. I agree with you

The Obama campaign has to keep running like they are behind, and not take a single vote for granted. The GOP smear machine is huge, and it works overtime. We have to be ready for anything they could throw at us.

Edit to add: This is a quite an admission coming from me, because I had you on ignore through most of the primary season. I'm glad I cleared out my list a while back.

[bridgit]

64. I think too many have learned over time. They've seen g.w. bush for that last 8 years...

riding round in golf carts aloof answering no questions, his handlers squelching all descent; censoring thoughts & access after an election in which he touted himself "a uniter, not a divider" while standing near the middle before his dash to the right beneath a hail of 'power filled wonder working' God Words...whether on the left or the right forget need, too many now think that's the kind of politician they want.

[beachmom]

66. 2008 is a different ballgame from 2004. Bush didn't hover much below 50% approval ratings

the entire year. The cycle was his to win. So I agree that people here were too cocky in what was going to be an uphill battle. However, we have serious work to do in 2008, and shouldn't count our chickens before they're hatched.

[chriswallace112]

69. It's a trap!!!

When thinking about the way that this election is going to unfold... we have to take into consideration the fact that most voters don't have time to read every little thing about the candidate.

So far, McBush is starting to take hold in people's minds because they are similar in so many respects... but on the flip side... the damage done by Hill and the attacks from the gopers i think are taking their toll...

I read today that 13% of people still believe that Obama's a muslim... and the fact that he has to continuously refute that shows that people, scared into submission by the fear-mongering Bush regime, are being affected by these smears. We can't be lulled into a sense of certainty over his victory as long as these lines of attacks continue.

[Darth_Kitten]

70. Never be lulled into a sense of security.......

:(

it's still going to be an uphill battle. Yes, even with McCain

[Twist_U_Up]

73. George Carlin on voting in AmeriKa

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ&feature=related

[AmyCamus]

80. You hit that nail right on the head, Lirwin.

Obama and Clinton know it won't be easy, that's why they got together in Unity.

[LanternWaste]

81. I'm confident in a Democratic win in Nov

I'm confident in a Democratic win in Nov. So yeah-- according to you I have "freaking amnesia" and "can't learn" because I happen to hold a different opinion than you do.

There are some dramatic, relevant and precise differences between the '00-'4 election and the upcoming '08 election.

Hence-- puke it up, chief. As a matter of fact, if I remember correctly from my college days, you'll probably feel a lot better after your upchuck, Chuck. Just make sure to brush your teeth and use some mouthwash...

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

84. We're going to beat McCain with ease.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[usregimechange]

85. I agree, see below