The Democratic Party is poised to dominate US politics

[ginchinchili]

In order for the Party to extend this period of dominance it will demand a clear understanding of the current political climate and a strategy that takes full advantage of that climate.

If we conclude that the country has swung to the left just because Bush has proven himself an imbecile time and time again at our country's expense then our Party's dominance will be short-lived. Democrats are a majority in Congress more because of Bush and his Party's ineptitude than due to any brilliant strategy on the Democrats' part, though I do believe that Dr. Dean has been doing a good job in moving the Party forward. My fear is that we'll over-play our hand, in large part due to over-confidence. This is reflected by many of the DU posts I read.

The most important step we will take in convincing a strong majority of Americans that Democrats will do a better job will be to choose the right candidate in the presidential primary. There's good reason to worry that Hillary Clinton will be a drag on the Democratic Party because she will energize those on the right, otherwise de-energized, to come to the polls and vote. She will also have independents voting against her, i.e., voting for the Republican candidate. Too many of Hillary Clinton's supporters either can't see this or they find it more convenient just to pretend it's not the case.

But it's not just the 2008 election we should be concerned with. Right now the Republican Party is at a low ebb. If Democrats want to make the most of their position of dominance, they will choose someone who is not an anathema to all who aren't enamored by the Clintons. Nominate Hillary and if she wins--and with Hillary it's a definite IF--people from all walks of life will support whomever they have to in order to defeat Hillary in 2012. So for 4 years all of the political energy in the country will be sucked away from focusing on our country's priorities and building our Party's image and into the struggle between those who support Hillary and those who are determined to bring her down. We have candidates who are 1.)better qualified; 2.)will attract rather than repel independents, Libertarians, and moderate Republicans, and; 3.)will set a course that will extend the Democratic Party's political domination while better serving our nation by channeling our energy toward our priorities rather than on an endless game of "gotcha!" with Hillary Clinton in one corner and the Republican's bulldogs in the other.

Though I think there are several candidates who would serve our Party and the country well, I personally believe that Joe Biden has proven his leadership through action while everyone else is trying to convince us by talking. We have to recognize that our country is facing several very serious crises. We continue our fixation with political turf wars at our own peril. Biden is strong, smart, pragmatic, and is a doer. The other candidates will be with us for a long time to come, and their potential will be realized according to their works. Biden represents experience, and if anyone questions the importance of experience, just consider what has happened to our country during the relatively short period of time that Bush, once himself a presidential candidate with limited experience, has been in power. This is a very, very serious election.

[bullimiami]

1. then it will be the time for us to really get to work and make sure they govern well.

integrity, honesty and fairness.

nothing else is acceptable.

[ginchinchili]

4. Absolutely!

[iconocrastic]

18. Your statements seem to imply that HRC is enough to kill that possibility

Second question: The time to demand integrity is before the election. It's silly to think you can fix that afterward.

So - where is HRC on the integrity-o-meter?

Just asking.

[ginchinchili]

20. I think a Hillary candidacy would seriously compromise the Democrats' chances

of fully realizing their current political potential. As for your second question, I hesitate to answer it, to be honest, except to say she's very calculating and has been planning her ambitious political climb for a long time now. Is that bad? I suppose, yes and no. Personally, I'm tired of anything that feels manipulative and something about her makes me feel like she's using us for her own gains. That's purely a subjective opinion.

[iconocrastic]

31. Trust your instincts

You sound like an honest person who only wishes the best.

[mitchtv]

2. your concern has been noted

and filed

[ginchinchili]

14. It would probably be better if you posted what you really mean

rather than imitate your candidate.

[mitchtv]

16. you think I support Sen Clinton?

I don't . I do however get annoyed at those who waste time doing the GOP's dirty work attacking Dems. Sorry I just prefer to read positive messages about ALL of oue candidates, who are ALL ten times better than any Puke out there. I am still smarting as the Dems destroyed our Gov candidate in Calif, all Arnold had to do was quote them. This is what you are doing now.

[ginchinchili]

17. Read your post. What the hell am I supposed to think?

Listen, if all you want to read is happy things about all the Democratic candidates that's your business, but for me it sounds way too much like what the Bush supporters did for way too long. Anything negative about Bush is unpatriotic and should not be expressed.

This is a campaign where candidates run against each other. Primaries are where the candidates of the same Party duke it out. If you find yourself only attracted to shiny objects, fine. In the mean time I'm going to express how I feel with the belief that doing so will help the Democratic Party and my country. I don't agree with it, but I welcome your comment.

[gateley]

3. Well done, ginchinchili! Recommend! nt

[OHdem10]

5. Must say you make a good case for your candidate.

[BeatleBoot]

6. Another East Coast Candidate?

I'd rather chew on glass than go through that shit again.

How about this...

Hillary wins all the states John Kerry won - plus Arkansas.

Sounds like a show stopper to me. And throw in Edwards as VP.


Game. Set. Match.


I love Mr. Biden, I do declare. But he'd make a better Secretary of State.

[ginchinchili]

9. Mike Huckabee would have a much better chance of winning Arkansas

than Hillary. You're kidding yourself if you think Hillary can win Arkansas. Seriously. Am I correct in assuming that you don't live in the South?

[Josh]

15. No, you're kidding yourself. Hillary is the prohibitive favourite to win Arkansas

Disclaimer: I don't have a preferred candidate, I don't live in the United States, and I'm not an American. I just follow this stuff out of interest. (And I studied it at college.) :)

Poll: Clinton, Clark best Huckabee in potential '08 White House match-ups
In poll results released Thursday, 51 percent of respondents said they would vote for Clinton in a head-to-head match-up with Huckabee and 36 percent favored the governor, with 15 percent undecided.
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2006/08/25/News/337438.html

Clinton Enjoys Big Lead in Arkansas
Clinton leads all Republican challengers in Arkansas by huge double digit margins. The closest GOP hopeful is Rudy Giuliani, but he trails Clinton by eighteen percentage points, 55% to 37%. Clinton leads Fred Thompson by nineteen points (55% to 36%), John McCain by 23 points (56% to 33%), and Mitt Romney by 32 points (60% to 32%).

Overall, 65% of Arkansas voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton while 33% say the opposite.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/clinton_enjoys_big_lead_in_arkansas

Whose kidding whom? :)

[ginchinchili]

19. Your first link is to a poll taken in Aug of 2006--it's obsolete.

Gov. Huckabee hadn't even announced that he was running yet. The 2nd link is to a poll that doesn't even include Huckabee. How can you use these polls to try to refute my statement that Huckabee would best Clinton in a one on one matchup? And in the second poll you point to the Republican's votes are divided between Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Thompson, where as Hillary is the only Democratic candidate offered in the poll. When there is a single Republican candidate the dynamic will be much different. There is a long time between now and Nov. 2008. These polls are meaningless. I stand by my statement.

[Josh]

29. RE:

1) Hillary hadn't announced she was running either. Do you really think a poll asking a state who they'd vote for between their (at the time) *current* governor and Hillary Clinton is meaningless?

2) I used the second poll to establish that Hillary does in fact have a very good chance of carrying Arkansas. I would certainly like someone to commision a new poll that includes Huckabee. Failing that the polling data has match-ups between her and the Republican frontrunners. Why it would make a difference if they were only offered one Republican candidate doesn't appear to make any sense to me. They didn't ask "Who would you vote for? Hillary Clinton or Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, or Romney?" It asked each of them as a separate question: "Clinton or Giuliani?" "Clinton or Thompson?" etc. By your implication, certainly the poll would be flawed. Its responses would also add up to 132% - and that's just the non-Clinton voters.

3) Of course there is a lot of time between now and November 2008. But your post had two points: first, it said Huckabee would trump Hillary in Arkansas; second, it said Hillary can't carry Arkansas. There are polls casting doubt on both of these assertions, yet when confronted with this evidence you merely reply "These polls are meaningless." Well throw me a bone, man, what kind of evidence would you at least *consider*?

[ginchinchili]

11. BTW, are you aware of New York's location?

Besides, it's not the part of the country a candidate hails from that matters. It's the candidate that matters. It's ridiculous to believe that a US President must come from the South. Hillary was neither born in the South nor is she a senator of a Southern state.

[PatSeg]

7. During times of peace and prosperity

we might have the luxury of taking a gamble on an unproven candidate who appears to have promise. I don't think we can take such a chance today. Any choices we make should be well researched and based on solid evidence of experience and electability. There is too much at stake to regress into fan club mentality.

[roody]

8. Will we notice a difference?

[ginchinchili]

10. Between a Democratic president and a Republican?

I'm certain we will. The trick is not to gain power then turn to the rest of the country and say, "now we'll do it our way." Look no further than the current state of the Republican Party to see how that works. No, the trick is to convince a strong majority that the country is better run when Democrats are in power. Democrats have better ideas. Democrats will legislate so that all of America benefits, not just a few. We want to convince people that we are America's Party, not an elitist Party like the Republicans.

[jillan]

12. Well said Ginchinchili! There is alot at stake in this election but

the frustrating part is that the press is more concerned about flag pins and necklines than reporting on issues.
And that is what the majority of people hear. People will go into the voting booth without realizing all the Biden has done. Or for that matter, any candidate. While Iraq is the major issue going into this election, where the candidates stand on how to get us out of that disaster is never discussed on the nightly news.

[ginchinchili]

13. You're right, Pirhana. The news media is letting us down again.

They're more concerned with selling advertising space than informing Americans on issues that we need to know in order to best run our democracy.

[ShortnFiery]

21. IMO, The Democratic Party has swung to the right ... the country is still LEFT of where the

Party Leaders (DLC) are at.

I fear that we will not realize any true change UNTIL our beloved Democratic Party value "the average American salary worker" ALMOST as much as our Corporate Masters. :shrug:

Until The Democratic Party begins to serve The Working People VICE The Investor Classes FIRST, we will be in a state of conflict. :(

[sampsonblk]

23. I knew I'd agree with you eventually

But you hit that nail right on the head. Until this party begins to serve the people first, this is just another temporary pendulum swing. And not much will change.

Edit: better subject

[ShortnFiery]

24. Will wonders ever cease?

The planets must be aligning. ;) :hi:

[ginchinchili]

26. Yeah, that's why Bush was elected twice

...because of our left-leaning country.

[rinsd]

22. There's a reason Hillary supporters ignore this

"There's good reason to worry that Hillary Clinton will be a drag on the Democratic Party because she will energize those on the right, otherwise de-energized, to come to the polls and vote. She will also have independents voting against her, i.e., voting for the Republican candidate. Too many of Hillary Clinton's supporters either can't see this or they find it more convenient just to pretend it's not the case"

Because although it is often said it has no evidence to support it.

Did GOP turnout increase in either of her Senate races?

If this is based on 1994, how come the Democrats then made net gains in Congress the next 3 elections?

What is the evidence that she will increase GOP turnout?

[sampsonblk]

25. There's anecdotal evidence for it. But so what?

[Perry Logan]

27. In all the world, nobody thinks the Republican Party has a shot...except the folks at DU.

The right-controlled media has an almost hypnotic spell over many of the people here. They're repeating Republican talking points that make even Republicans laugh by now...

You have to posit total amnesia of the populace to think the Repubs have a shot.

The Republicans had their six years of hegemony. They virtually destroyed everything they touched. There's not enough kool-aid in the world to make the voters forget that.

The Republican Party is toast.

PS: And no, the Democrats in Congress have not been buckling to the administration. It's been just the opposite. You're swallowing bad memes again.

[sampsonblk]

28. You are preaching to the choir: The GOP is toast

That's my point. I am sure there are a number of GOPers who hate Hillary Clinton and will be willing to go to the ends of the earth to vote against her. But so what? In fact, I kinda like that idea.

There aren't enough of them to win this election. They are just going to have to get over it, no matter who we nominate.

PS: They have been buckling. On that one, I have to part company with you. They were elected to oppose Bush and his handling of this war. Instead, they have voluntarily funded it with no strings attached. That is cowardice to the nth degree. They are playing to win the next election, not to do what's right for today. There is no excuse for paying for this war and requiring nothing in return. We were told it was a clever strategy to make the GOP effort collapse by September. If so, that was the dumbest political strategy in history.

[wyldwolf]

30. This is just the same daily bull repackaged.

There's good reason to worry that Hillary Clinton will be a drag on the Democratic Party because she will energize those on the right, otherwise de-energized, to come to the polls and vote. She will also have independents voting against her, i.e., voting for the Republican candidate. Too many of Hillary Clinton's supporters either can't see this or they find it more convenient just to pretend it's not the case.

What good reason is there to believe this? Your word? Someone else's? Everything you wrote in that passage defies polling data. The only defense Hillary detractors have against polling data is paranoid conspiracy theories.

[Arugula Latte]

32. Hold up for a second.

Have you not taken into consideration that the Republicans through media ownership and a loud, obnoxious megaphone have been pretending that the country is much farther to the right than it actually is? Polls have consistently shown high support for the moderate-left side of many, many issues -- including social issues such as abortion. Yet, the "appearance" of a very conservative country has dominated -- and been used to rightwingers' advantage time and time again while it cows Democrats, who only need to stand up for themselves and not let the rightwing media and the Republicans intimidate them.

So, thanks anyway, I'm not buying the premise of an otherwise conservative country "swinging to the left" because of Bush. In reality, the country has been farther to the left than its government for a long time.