Dems can't be happy right now. Kerry receives no "pop" from Edwards and can't get any traction in the news. Even the DNC is getting overshadowed by other things.
And Sandy Berger isn't helping either (although the lack of press coverage on this story is. Hey, where are all the Watergate wannabes?)
Anyway, some folks are saying Kerry and the Clintons are warring w/in the DNP, and Kennedy is controlling things from Kerry's side.
In my best effort to be objective, things don't look good for Kerry or the Dems at this point.
The dems have been declining in #'s recently. I guess they got tired of their views exploding in their faces.
As far as the Kerry ticket, I imagine he will go just as Dole, Dukakis, and the other scary looking candidates have in recent past!
GrayBeard Wrote:The dems have been declining in #'s recently. I guess they got tired of their views exploding in their faces.
As far as the Kerry ticket, I imagine he will go just as Dole, Dukakis, and the other scary looking candidates have in recent past!
well with klutz dio & jbr gone that knocked out a 1000 post a day by the libs :D even though schad tries to do good job of spreading the dem propaganda :D :wave: :angel:
There's 2 ways of looking at it, I suppose:
Dems look at it as a race eminently winnable, considering the President's overall approval numbers and the virtual tie in the race. Traditionally, a President with middling approval ratings in the summer don't fare well in elections.
Republicans look at it from the standpoint of the bombs being thrown from the other side towards the President. Let's face it - GW Bush has taken more partisan abuse during an election campaign than perhaps any person in modern times. From the slew of liberal websites being funded by idiots like George Soros, to Hollywood creating "documentaries" and "entertainment" both obvious and thinly veiled shots at Pres. Bush (Fahrenheit 911, Day after Tomorrow, The Manchurian Candidate), to the 25-50 books published since last Dec. slamming the President in one way or another...I'd have to say the libs have emptied their pistols at the President, reloaded and emptied them again.
All of that...coupled with the GLOWING coverage given to John Kerry, and all they can muster is a statistical dead heat.
My guess is that there isn't much ammo left - economic news has been positive (save this typical summer lull), Iraq is more stable, and the 9/11 report blew the far left conspiracy theories out of the water. The Senate Commissions report (section 15) actually stated that our efforts have put Al Qaeda in a state of disarray.
I wouldn't say I'm supremely confident of a Bush re-election, but I'm getting there. What I do believe, however, is that the race is going to break decisively for SOMEBODY - I can't buy into the idea of 2 straight razor thin elections.
I talked to a young man last night, who is about to vote in his first election. He was going to vote for Sen. Kerry "Just Because." After educating him with some real world, first hand experience. He seems to have changed his mind.
DukeofDrums Wrote:I talked to a young man last night, who is about to vote in his first election. He was going to vote for Sen. Kerry "Just Because." After educating him with some real world, first hand experience. He seems to have changed his mind.
:bluethumb: All it takes is just a little education!
DukeofDrums Wrote:I talked to a young man last night, who is about to vote in his first election. He was going to vote for Sen. Kerry "Just Because." After educating him with some real world, first hand experience. He seems to have changed his mind.
i hope that young man was appreciative to you
GrayBeard Wrote:The dems have been declining in #'s recently. I guess they got tired of their views exploding in their faces.
That and abject hatred will only carry you so far.
DEMS FAVOR HILLARY IN 2008...
If this is already being discussed, there must be a considerable number of DEMS that don't think Kerry will win. :wave:
In fairness, I think Republicans set themselves up for the vitriol President Bush has endured with their conduct towards the end of the Clinton years.
I spent the first 4 years of Clinton's Presidency literally hating the man - "He's not MY President" was one of my favorite lines. I felt the man was all style and no substance, lifted into office by idealistic empty heads who were swayed by the rhetoric without investigating the substance.
That might have all been true, but after the '96 election, I began asking myself whether or not my anger was helping or not. My conclusion was simply this:
The man was my President, whether I liked it or not;
Just because I disliked him, didn't mean I should screech with joy every time he did something wrong or stupid - because when our President and our elected officials do something right, it benefits all of us, and their mistakes hurt all of us - so we should be hoping for the best regardless of our feelings for the person.
After that, I started looking at the way Clinton changed his style to work with the Congress - adopting some of their ideas, and even coming up with some of his own that actually did some good. I never appreciated his military strategies, and I think he rode the internet bubble a bit too long in an attempt to bolster his legacy (and the lying under oath did damage to Presidency regardless of your feelings about the Lewinsky mess), but was Clinton a HORRIBLE President? I don't really think so.
The point is, I personally try not to get too wrapped up in just the Presidential election alone - there will be plenty of more Presidents in our lifetimes. What we have to do is try and support the President to the best of our abilities, call them out RESPECTFULLY when we feel they're slipping up, and have confidence that the checks and balances of the system will prevent any one ideology from eclipsing the country. Clinton didn't get his way on a lot of things thanks to the Congress; Bush has had setbacks too.
Zogby keeps calling this the "Armaggeddon Election". I'm trying very hard not to feel that way. As much as it would bother me for the Michael Moores of the world to feel like they've won, I don't buy the notion that they've "lost" for 4 years just because the guy they voted for didn't get elected.
Am I kidding myself? Probably. :bang: :bang: :bang: :drink: :drink:
DrTorch Wrote:Dems can't be happy right now. Kerry receives no "pop" from Edwards and can't get any traction in the news. Even the DNC is getting overshadowed by other things.
And Sandy Berger isn't helping either (although the lack of press coverage on this story is. Hey, where are all the Watergate wannabes?)
Anyway, some folks are saying Kerry and the Clintons are warring w/in the DNP, and Kennedy is controlling things from Kerry's side.
In my best effort to be objective, things don't look good for Kerry or the Dems at this point.
Well, there's this to consider, according to Bloomberg News this afternoon...
"Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, leads 47 percent to 41 percent in 18 states where the presidential vote is expected to be closest, the Washington-based Pew Research Center found in a July 8-18 survey. A month ago Bush had an 11 point lead, according to Pew."
It doesn't mean anything definitively. But if it puts any damper on your online pep talk here, I'll consider it a service.
Enjoy the weekend!