Why do so many DUers think our 08 victory is virtually guaranteed?

[skipos]

In 1973, vice-president Spiro Agnew (R) resigned after he was charged with the crime of tax evasion. President Nixon (R) resigned in 1974. Yet in 1976, Carter (D) beat Ford (R) by only 2%. In 1980, Reagan (R) beat Carter (D) by 10%. In 1984, Reagan (R) beat Mondale (D) by 18%. In 1992, HW Bush (R) beat Dukakis (D) by 8%

After one of the most corrupt administrations in history, the general public was quickly forgiving of the (R) candidates, and forgiving for a long time.

So why is 2008 going to be different? Sure, Bush Inc will drag the GOP down, but why should we be sure that America will be aware how bad another Republican president will be? Will MSM accurately portray the GOP candidates as bad for America? Will Americans dig deep to find the truth about the GOP candidates?

Generic Dems lead generic Repubs by large margins in the polls, yet there are many head to head polls that show Dame Rudy and McCain doing very, very well. Especially considering they are warmongering Bushbots. Our current primary frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, consistently underperforms Edwards and Obama in head to head general election polls. In my opinion, if we nominate a weak general election candidate, and the Repubs nominate a strong general election candidate, 2008 could very well be a nailbiter.

So... why are you so optimistic about 2008?

[Buzz Clik]

1. If those people weren't die hard Dems with no interest in contrary opinions,

they wouldn't be hanging out at DU.

People with the rational opinion that "we won't know until the votes are counted" are choosing not to state the obvious.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "why are you so optimistic about 2008?"

Because I'm a Democrat. Optimisim defines us.

[Buzz Clik]

5. "Optimism defines us". Interesting. I'm not anything defines a Democrat.

It sure as hell isn't optimism.

[pampango]

22. LOL. Good point. Whatever defines us, it sure isn't optimism.

(Or at least hasn't been for the past 7 years.) ;)

Anyone that comes to DU for their daily dose of optimism and upbeat attitude should redirect their browser.

[Kelly Rupert]

58. Here I've been thinking it's

"Not being a Republican, but not being too unlike a Republican."

[endarkenment]

3. Because this is even worse than '76.

Far worse. And it is just starting to dawn on the 25% of voters who are 'independent trending R' how badly they have been had.

[Donnachaidh]

4. You're kidding, right?

We've not even gotten past the tip of the iceberg in terms of finding the bottom of the corruption in this administration. BushCo is going to go down in the record books as THE most criminal administration in this country's history. I think they've already gotten to that point.

Don't even use Watergate as an example -- look at it in terms of the last time the robber barons were in control - the Great Depression. Bush and his uber-wealthy base have turned the clock back to that 'wonderful' feel-good time. The entire WORLD is teetering on Depression - thanks to the PNAC Masters of the Universe plan.

We haven't seen the collapse splattered across the headlines, because of the MSM working hand in hand with Bush and company. But it IS happening. And people ARE seeing it.

The Repukes will be banished for DECADES because of it.

[Neecy]

16. agree

While the statistics above are valid, I'd also look at the election of 1932 when the GOP destroyed the economy while telling people things were terrific. They handed us Roosevelt on a silver platter.

[derby378]

17. One would hope, but...

These people practically invented the spin machine. By all rights, the Republican Party should have only 10-15 years left to live because of its embrace of both neo-fascism and the extreme Christian right. But it's not going to be that easy to slay Hydra.

[pampango]

26. The US may indeed be teetering on the verge of another

Depression, though we have been saying that for a long time, but much of the world is doing quite well. A collapse here will hurt Europe and China/India/Japan/South Korea, but they all have much larger domestic markets than they did in the 1930's. Back then, when we cut off imports from the rest of the world, their economies collapsed just like ours.

Perhaps there should be two scenarios for 2008 - one in which your World Depression is apparent to all concerned (like it was in 1932) and another in which it is not (with the Repubs hoping that the dramatic collapse occurs under a Democratic president.)

[loudsue]

30. No way. They OWN THE VOTING MACHINES!!

That fact, plus the republican ownership of media, will INSURE that republicans never totally fall from grace.

:kick::kick::kick:

[sshan2525]

6. Underestimating the stupidity...................

of the American public. Believe me, an ass clown like Rudy could still get in if enough people buy into the "9/11 hero" bullshit and the Dems field a controversial candidate like Hillary. We are a badly informed and casually concerned citizenry. We've learned nothing from he fiascos of Viet Nam & Reagan. Why shouldn't I be worried that that the voters will do something stupid in '08?

[dave_p]

7. Nothing's guaranteed

"if we nominate a weak general election candidate, and the Repubs nominate a strong general election candidate, 2008 could very well be a nailbiter"

I'd say it'll be a disaster, if the Democrat candidate hasn't the killer instinct and the radical policy insight to destroy voters' acceptance of the assumptions supporting GOP lies.

Those who forget 2004 are condemned to relive it - and that's not a shot at Kerry: the party brass as a whole snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't let it happen again.

[Laurab]

47. Although I agree with you -

I have to say I don't see any of the present repugs running as being "strong candidates". I think their supposed front runners' status can be easily destroyed, and, I've read even the republics aren't happy with their choices.

I think we DO have a couple of very strong candidates, and I hope one of them does get the nomination. IMO it is much, much worse for the republics than it was in '04, and I can't see a single one of their current crop as ending up as a strong candidate. I think a lot of republicans may choose to sit this one out, if they can't bring themselves to vote for a dem.

Still, I agree that our candidate has to have the killer instinct, and fight back IMMEDIATELY against the lies. I believe it's ours to lose, but the voting machines worry me. Dems need to win by a large margin, and be aware of any voting "irregularities".

I really do think the republican candidates are a bunch of clowns - I can't take a single one of them seriously, and if that's the best they've got, it will be awfully hard to lose in '08.

[dave_p]

51. I agree that they aren't strong

... but a supportive corporate media can go a long way toward making them seem strong, as it did in '04 with the deranged imbecile who'd let 911 happen. I'm still haunted by that. The one place they can't be strong is on performance and policy fundamentals, which is why Democrats have to be. The media worry me even more than those other lie machines.

[shenmue]

8. Bush's ratings are in the toilet. Also, we won Congress.

I'm tired of this "let's slit our wrists because we're never gonna win!" crap.

Clinton whupped everybody's ass. Twice.

[AllegroRondo]

9. A Repub candidate that showed major differences from bush might have a chance

but so far, they're all acting like clones.

[TwilightGardener]

52. The only ones to do this are Paul and Hagel--one has absolutely

no chance (Paul), and the other isn't even running (yet).

[Ferret Annica]

69. I'm not so sure of that

Ron Paul can't walk on water, but he demonstrated this week he can sleep with the alligators.

The NeoCon filth don't want him and will continue to try to harpoon him, but Dr. Paul impressed and resonated with many people.

Let's hope for the best, I want him to win that GOP nomination.

[TwilightGardener]

71. It would be nice if Paul would win it, just as a reward for his candor,

but it's just not in the cards--aside from many other reasons, he is even older than McCain.

[in_cog_ni_to]

10. Because Cheney's poll numbers are 9% and the Psycho's are 28%?

and the repukes who follow them will pay. Just a guess.

[NavyDavy]

11. even with mccain and rudy doing good our candidates

are scoring higher in polls.....why be optimistic? because being a pessimist is choosing to be a loser....

[Poiuyt]

12. I agree

Bush and his administration are not running in 08. The Republicans will be working from a clean slate.

That said, I think that we will win, but it won't be easy.

[skipos]

13. And that is my feeling. It won't be easy.

DUers often think that just because WE see how bad this administration is, MOST AMERICANS see it just as clearly as we do. Or just because WE know how bad the Republican candidates are, MOST AMERICANS know it too.

All you need to do is look at the approval/disapproval ratings on Con. Rice to see that isn't the case. Or look at the fav/unfavs for Dame Rudy.

[Raksha]

66. A "clean" slate??? I don't think so! n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

14. There's a gaping chasm between "optimism" an "virtually guaranteed"

I am optimistic because I have reason to be. The media have finally stopped pretending that our President and his Iraq adventure are popular. Polling indicates decent support for Pelosi, and I think she and Reid have what it takes to build on that trust.

I do not believe it is virtually guaranteed because yes, I do remember how far Nixon fell, and how Ford was somehow able to pick up the pieces and run a credible campaign against Carter in '76. It's a fitting analogy and you are right to bring it up; but remember too that Ford had more time than the current Republican hopefuls to put distance between himself and the unpopular administration. For Romney, Guiliani, McCain and company, Bush is an albatross around their neck that they can't cast off.

[skipos]

23. You are right, "optimism" wasn't the right word.

I am mostly refering to the sentiment a few posts up. "You're kidding right?" Which implies I am stupid to think that we actually might lose in 2008.

Personally, I am optimistic, but I think our victory is far from guaranteed. The online betting places have a dem victory at about 55 to 45, which I agree with.

[Kablooie]

15. The Congress STILL isn't able to do ANYTHING about Bush so why won't the Repubs just steal it again?

[derby378]

18. An impeachment would be nice...

Whatever happened to the push that was in progress?

[Kablooie]

20. It's off the table.

Like every other possible remedy.

All OFF THE TABLE.

[glitch]

19. They have to, if only to keep themselves out of prison. They'll think of something to make the rig

just plausible enough for the corporate media to parrot (very low bar).

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Perception is everything for the voting public.

Nixon wasn't perceived for what he was until after the Watergate fiasco. Until then the public perceived him as the guy who sought "Peace with Honor", opened the door to China, stopped the rioting in the cities and campuses, fought crime, etc, etc.

The difference this time is that most of the public sees the Republicans as architects of an unwinnable war, riddled with corruption and scandals, and that Bush is a weak president who has been unable to accomplish anything.

Unlike Reagan, Bush is unable to hide his ineptness, and sheer stupidity, behind a affable, paternal, mask as Reagan did.

Not that the Democrats have a great record of avoiding victory by attempting to pander to the right wing and become mere clones of Republicans in all but name. But, this time, it will take a major effort on their part to lose to a candidate and party that the public is so hostile to. However, they do seem to have a knack for doing just that.

[ThomWV]

24. People hated Nixon, they did not hate Republicans

That was my perception at the time. It was personal.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. I, for one, am not.

The Bushites know that if they do not win they will be packing the jail cells. They will do ANYTHING to keep out of prison. And we can expect that.

It has been estimated that in the 06 election there was half-again as much electoral fraud as in 04, which is why there were only modest gains in the house and senate - it should have been a blowout. Next time around they will not fudge within the 'margin of error' because it simply won't be enough. There will be MAJOR upsets and with the unaccountable electronic systems there will be no possibility of recounts.

The republicans will do everything they can to see that we nominate our weakest candidate, using Rovian divide and conquer tactics. But it makes no difference, in the end. If our candidate doesn't carry a 20% lead over theirs, we will be sitting up on election night watching another Florida or Ohio.

And complicit to it all will be the majority of the dem leadership which refuses to see that this is not the politics of 40 years ago - that a dangerous cabal has taken over the republican party and seriously infiltrated the democtratic party.

It is 1928 - our economy is built on a foundation of paper, and the fascists are poised to take over. When the crash comes, who will be our FDR?

I am not optimistic.

[Spurt]

27. There should be no confidence..

while there is so many election problems not resolved.

As things stand, the voters will not choose the next POTUS - the people who "count" the votes will determine the result, with Supreme Court assistance of course.

The last 2 elections have been stolen, I see no reason to believe the next will be any different. Optimism will not defeat fraud.

[w4rma]

28. I think some DUers are backing candidates who either perform poorly against Republicans or

are backing untested candidates with huge easy to explode targets on them.

And they really really want people to believe that, even though their candidate doesn't do well against Republicans, they should take a leap of faith on such a poor choice. They want that candidate to win the primary even at the cost of the general election.

[cascadiance]

29. Yup, many thought Schwarzenneger was toast after the special election too...

But we learned the hard way!...

Still hoping for Gore to get in the race!

[soothsayer]

31. It will be a dem, astrologically speaking, but 4 more years of fascism,

according to political/economic cycles (non-astrological but equally cool). THEN after that it gets really, really good.

[NoPasaran]

32. Because who WOULDN'T vote for a Kucinich/Gravel ticket?

Those dudes are shoo-ins, man!

:sarcasm:

[Rosemary2205]

33. LOL :) nt

[DefenseLawyer]

37. If those damn Democrats don't nominate Kucinich

I am voting for the Green Party or the Flat Earth Society Party or maybe the Donner Party in protest!

[MadBadger]

34. If the Election was decided by Popular Vote, then Id guarantee Victory

But the Electoral College still scares me.

[JNelson6563]

35. Arrogance

We Dems seem to be as good at it as the Rethugs sometimes.

Julie

[porphyrian]

36. Why does it matter to you?

Would you be happier if everyone were negative about it? Are you unhappy about the optimism or that people don't think the way you think they should?

[skipos]

39. Why does it matter to me?

Because I like to know what other Dems think, wether I agree with it or not.

"Would you be happier if everyone were negative about it?"
No.

"Are you unhappy about the optimism or that people don't think the way you think they should?"
No.

You need to chill out or something. This is just a discussion forum, and my questions shouldn't upset you.

[porphyrian]

40. You are in no position to tell me what I need to do.

I've been here for some time, so you don't need to tell me what this is, either.

If you don't like what people have to say about your opinions, keep them the fuck to yourself.

[skipos]

44. Cheer up!

We are all friends here. :)

[porphyrian]

45. No we're not, and you're still trying to tell me what to do.

Now you're pushing optimism? What's with you?

[skipos]

48. Ok.

You seem pretty angry, and I am not. I am not looking to fight, that's all I am saying.
See... I didn't tell you what to do. :)

[LSK]

38. because the GOP is running the 3 stooges???

:shrug:

[Initech]

41. Are you kidding? Look who the republicans have running:

Their 10 candidates are all rich white douchebags. McCain, Romney, and Guiliani are their top three candidates! They're all no better than Bush!

[CK_John]

42. I'm very worried. Big money are going to hedge with an IND movement. GOP-Lite without

the baggage of the RW. I call them the pothole fixers.

[TwilightGardener]

49. I agree, at least as far as a credible Indy run--someone's gonna

do it (Bloomberg?) and the Dems will suffer some damage.

[Madspirit]

43. Because

If I don't believe this I will jump off something very very high or shoot myself or cut my own throat or hang myself or take an OD or run in front of traffic or ... I HAVE to believe this.
Lee

[TheFarseer]

46. I think it is going to be a tough election

the Republican slime machine alone ensures that. Repubs are too entrenched in so many states. Does anyone honestly think the R's will lose Texas or any of the states north of it up to the Canadian border? At least most of the states in the south will go R. Moat of the mountain states will too. It's going to be the same sh*t as 2000 and 2004 with a few battleground states.

The R's will all be running away from Bush and don't think they can't get away with it because they can and they will. By the time this is over, the Dems will be more responsible for the war. Two of the top three Dems voted for the war after all and if Barak Obama hasn't single handedly ended the war by 2008, well, he'll be responsible too.

[TwilightGardener]

54. I think Dems will win because the public has ADD and they will want

a new party in the WH--fresh start and all that jazz, the pendulum swinging back again. But it will be tougher than we think, mostly because the average schmuck isn't going to connect the BFEE to any of the new R candidates, except McCain--they'll just think: "New guy! and he's smarter than Bush--good enough!"

[AlCzervik]

50. i don't at all, i always assume w're the underdogs and we should run that way.

[new101010]

53. these guys

are the most reliable statistically and historically

it's not even close 2008 is going to be a cake walk... seriously

[skipos]

56. I use tradesports and I can tell you

VERY VERY few people thought Democrats would take the house and the senate in 2006 on that site. The early predictions on my governor where very off. I find that tradesports usually lags the polls a bit, and is not a good predictor.

I made some good money there in 2006.

[new101010]

70. well

I 've used it to alot of success, anyway I wouldn't give my self an ulcer over it anyway even if it is outside the +/-% error

[joshcryer]

63. Awesome how many bets are going for Gore! :)

Cute!

[mvd]

55. We've got to get in a winning mindframe

But this election will not be easy. They'll throw everything at us. However, if we all do our part enough, I see a win.

[Kelly Rupert]

57. Because they're honestly incapable of considering a loss.

The "but...but...he MUST have stolen it!" attitude regarding '04, the "Diebold must have stolen TN and a bunch of house seats" that fluttered about for a while in '06...heck, I've even seen a few Diebold theories re:Sarkozy/Royal, where they don't even use e-voting. I'm guessing that the deep-seated inability to consider the possibility that a Republican might draw more votes than a Democrat is simply being extended forward instead of retroactively, as usual.

Hell, before '06 the biggest worry wasn't "what if people vote for Republicans instead?" It was "what if Diebold steals it?" Same with '04, as I recall.

(note: nothing you can post in reply will make me believe that John Kerry won 2004. I've seen it all already. Save your ctrl, C, and V keys.)
(edit note: Obviously Al Gore won 2000. I think that went a long way towards conditioning DU.)

[illinoisprogressive]

59. I don't. It depends on many things. Who the nominees are, the climate, the war, ect.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Because Hillary is probably NOT going to be the nominee.

Rudy reeks of cross-dressing and Roe v. Wade, which shouldn't matter except that the knuckle-dragging, 6,000 year old Earth, Dinosaurs-on-Noah's Ark, fundy pinhead gang OWNS the GOP primary process. Likewise, they can't stand McCain.

I think we'll be surprised at who our nominee ends up being, and I think that individual will win by a VERY large margin... particularly if he or she steps up to the plate and endorses a brave, forward-thinking, strong progressive and socially libertarian agenda, encompassing everything from getting out of Iraq and Single Payer Health Care System to ending the drug war.

[illinoisprogressive]

61. they say that dems have a thing about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

We like to pick the most unappealing candidates to be our nominee and then wonder why we lost.
Mondale, Dukakis, gore (he was not stunning in 2000) and Kerry.
Not exactly people our own would get too excited about let alone attracting other voters.
Why do we do this. the average voter goes alot on gut and appeal. But, we have a habit of choosing the leat appealing and end up in defeat. why?
We overthink.

[joshcryer]

62. Because it is?

If the Democrats lose in '08 there is no hope for the party and it should be disbanded immediately.

[hfojvt]

64. because the M$M is playing it that way

in spite of early polling that shows Republican front-runners beating Democratic front-runners, and in spite of an M$M that continues to pump up Republicans and tear down Democrats.

[mmonk]

65. Nobody knows for sure.

Nobody can predict events which may effect the election. All I know is we need to do as much as we can with the numbers we have and not take anything for granted or not be too cautious about the presidential election as to not realy effect change or accountability on the part of the republicans.

[Canuckistanian]

67. I think the mid-term elections were a clue

And if Bush and his enabling Republicans don't do anything to change the war's direction, then I don't know how they will even survive their primaries.

[Alexander]

68. For the same reason some DUers think Hillary will waltz to the nomination.

They aren't paying enough attention.

I'm more concerned about Romney and Hagel than anyone else. Romney's slickness and Hagel's anti-war record could fool a lot of moderates into voting for them - and they'd have the fundie/RW base nailed down, unlike McCain and Rudy.

I really think the GOP ticket will be Hagel/Romney or Romney/Hagel.

[skipos]

72. A couple of things, just my opinion

I see no evidence that the GOP wants an anti-war candidate. Most of them think Bush is doing a a-ok job in Iraq (60% if I remember correctly), and the rest of them probably think the war was a great idea but George just hasn't executed it well. I don't see Hagel going anywhere.

Romney is an fine enough speaker, but has literally flip flopped on every position he has had. He would certainly lose his homestate, and (right or wrong) his religion will cost him some votes. He is the administrations candidate, which may help him win the primary, but I am not seeing a lot of support for him from actual people. I think Romney would be one of the easier candidates to beat. Newt would be easier, but Rudy and McCain still have that faux hero thing going on, and MSM and many voters seem to eat that up.

[TwilightGardener]

73. More than half of Republicans polled in Iowa recently though we should

withdraw from Iraq--how does that square with your theory that the R's wouldn't want a candidate tht shares that view? They don't have anyone running like that now, except Paul, and he's not a viable mainstream candidate. Hagel might do better than you think, especially given that he has the other conservative creds they worship. His problem is more of a personal one with the base, not so much his take on the war, but his perceived lack of loyalty.

[skipos]

75. Iowa may be different

If you look at polling report, you will see...

72% of republicans oppose Congress setting a time-table for withdrawing all United States troops from Iraq.
58% of republicans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq.

Repubs are unhappy with their candidates, but I have NEVER seen anything to indicate that it is because they want an anti-war candidate. It might be out there, but I have never seen it. In fact, the candidates that Repubs are hoping will come and save the day, Newt and F Thompson, are as pro-war as they get.

Hagel might do better than I think, but he might go nowhere too.

[TwilightGardener]

78. I agree--he most likely will go "nowhere", at least in the GOP (don't

know what would happen if he ran as an Indy) but my point was that it's mostly PERSONAL between him and the base--I think if one of the "loyal" frontrunners started modifying his position to indicate that the war is not an open-ended commitment and would end EVENTUALLY if certain progress isn't made under his watch (Romney comes closest here from what I've heard), the GOPers might be relieved that the war wouldn't be a sure loser for them in the general election. It would probably be a Rove-crafted masterpiece of pure bullshit, because the neocons want our presence there to last forever, but it would SOUND anti-war enough to fool a lot of people, D's and R's. I'm surprised that they didn't try this tack with Thompson--instead, he sounds like a raving pro-war loon, who wants us to stay in Iraq as long as there's ANY chance for stability--he's nuts. They wasted their chance. The R's are very uneasy about this war, as evidenced by the ones in Congress fighting to save their seats.

[Enrique]

74. we shouldn't be afraid to nominate Hillary

that seems to be the underlying message of your post, that Hillary is a generally weak candidate and that it would be reckless to nominate her.

There are a lot of reasons one might choose another candidate over Hillary, but we shouldn't make that decision based on fear.

[skipos]

76. There are many, many reasons I don't want Hillary to be our nominee

but that wasn't the point of my op.

[TwilightGardener]

77. Until there's evidence that she isn't going to rally the R's and I's

to come out in full force AGAINST her, which is what I suspect would happen, I would rather she not be the nominee--I support Obama, because he wouldn't have that effect. So basing my choice of candidate on the "polarization" factor is perfectly acceptable, since I want to win in '08 rather than just go with someone because I like his or her health-care plan, or plan for the war, or whatever.