People - ANY Democrat will win the general election

[mudesi]

People are sick and tired of the Republicans. Even if they're conservative they're going to either vote for the Democrat or not bother to show up at the polls.

The real question is whether or not the Democrats will win in 2012. If another spineless, enabling, corporately owned, DLC "impeachment off the table" kind of Democrat wins, then prepare for the Democrats to lose Congress in 2010 and the White House again in 2012.

This is why I've said countless times that the Democrats have to stop pandering to conservatives and actually stand for liberal values. Otherwise they'll win every couple of decades or so, but never truly gain power.

[Bitwit1234]

1. Obama isn't going to get the nom but if he did he wouldn't

[stillcool]

2. nasty...

I think they have a cure for that...a rabies shot.

[TahitiNut]

6. ... or two.

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Obama will win BIG in the GE. Just watch. You-are-going-to-be-so-pissed come November.

President Obama....has a ring to it, doesn't it?:rofl:

I still hope Edwards wins, but it doesn't look good for him! I just hope he stays in the race until Feb.5 so I can vote for him. If he doesn't, I will gladly vote for Barack.

[YOY]

3. The way the Pubs are going yes it will be...

But the way that some folks are so anti-Hillary on both sides (I don't like but I'd vote for her given no other choice...) I still think she's not the best option. Especially if someone on the right gets their shit together...

[HeraldSquare212]

4. I agree any Dem would win

But I have the opposite conclusion than you re: 2012. Even though it breaks my little heart.

[TahitiNut]

7. As I've said, it'd take a real effort for the Dems to blow the 2008 election.

As I've also said, I know the Dems are up to making that effort. :evilgrin:

Sheesh! The whole country is polling 50%+ for a 'generic' Dem vs. 35%- for a 'generic' Puke.

The disgust with Smirk and Sneer has (silently) decimated the rank and file of the GOP.

That's why the 'centrist' Dems are salivating ... eager to tighten their grip in the party. "Who the fuck are you going to vote for? The GOP???" is the TAUNT thrown at blacks, gays, hard-core liberals, labor, and the rest of the traditional Democratic base. It's why the Dems were able to throw Michigan under the bus. It's why Obama has no pressing need to distance himself from the homophobes. It's why Clinton has no problem filling her coffers with corporate money.


One major note of caution:

Y'all may think that it makes sense to DISCARD some candidates based on inane ephemerals like "electability" but mark my words ... you're going to hear DECADES of spin that "Single Payer Health Care was rejected by the voters when they didn't get behind Kucinich!"

The special interest spin masters NEVER ascribe the failure of a candidate to his looks (Mondale) or his height (Dukakis) or other specious ephemerals. It's ALWAYS ascribed to the failure to gain agreement on the POSITION they took.

You (blind?) partisans are throwing babies out with the (claimed) bathwater ... and you'll only hear about it in the coming years. You may THINK you're ascribing the failed candidacy to the ephemerals ... but you really ARE shit-canning the signature issues of that candidate.

(This probably deserves it's own thread ... but there are far too many asinine brain-farts masquerading as OMs for my taste.)

[AndyTiedye]

8. We Have a Really Weak Field of Candidates This Year

Sheesh! The whole country is polling 50%+ for a 'generic' Dem vs. 35%- for a 'generic' Puke

Unfortunately, we do not do nearly that well in any matchup of actual Democratic and Republican candidates.

In a few, we are actually losing, in the rest it is either a statistical tie, or close enough for the Repigs to steal again.

Certainly there is no cushion whatsoever for the effects of the inevitable "swift boating" of our candidate.
None for the dilution of Democratic votes in the Electoral College (without which our President would be Al Gore!).

Y'all may think that it makes sense to DISCARD some candidates based on inane ephemerals like "electability" but mark my words ... you're going to hear DECADES of spin that "Single Payer Health Care was rejected by the voters when they didn't get behind Kucinich!"

The special interest spin masters NEVER ascribe the failure of a candidate to his looks (Mondale) or his height (Dukakis) or other specious ephemerals. It's ALWAYS ascribed to the failure to gain agreement on the POSITION they took.

You (blind?) partisans are throwing babies out with the (claimed) bathwater ... and you'll only hear about it in the coming years. You may THINK you're ascribing the failed candidacy to the ephemerals ... but you really ARE shit-canning the signature issues of that candidate.

That is because it will be the Repiglickin' media that you will be hearing it from!

We're screwed either way. We reject DK and nominate someone else, the MSM will frame it as a rejection of everything he is proposing.
If we nominate DK and he loses, the MSM will frame it as a rejection of everything he is proposing, as they heap praise and hosannahs on the newly-elected President Huckabee!

Obviously we need more telegenic candidates who are also progressive.
A bit more experience than the current field would be a plus.