Why are Democrats so pessimistic on 2004?

[no name no slogan]

Not everyone, mind you, but there's this overwhelming sense of pessimism amongst so many of the campaigns, most of them the frontrunners.

Most Democrats agree that we want single-payer universal health care, but somehow we've convinced ourselves that it "won't happen", so we'll settle for "managed competition", which just sends more healthcare $$ down the same corporate rathole.

Most of our candidates will sign a single-payer plan into law that comes from congress, but s/he won't bother submitting one to congress because "it won't pass". What kind of leadership is that?

We want to get us troops out of Iraq, but we're sure that the UN won't help out, so we'll have to stay there "for the foreseeable future".

We want to stop corporate abuses and misdeeds, but there's no way we can cancel NAFTA and the WTO (two agreements that give corporations more power than sovereign governments), so we should just settle for fixing them around the edges.

We want to redirect excessive military spending to our crumbling infrastructure, but we KNOW that somehow most Americans won't support that, and we don't want to appear "soft" on terrorism, so we'll settle for canceling a useless program or two, but maintaining the $400+ billion pentagon budget.

And furthermore, it seems like ,everybody is just assuming that we have NO CHANCE of retaking the Senate or making a serious dent in the GOP House majority. What about the coattail effect? If we have a positive, optimistic candidate at the top of the ticket, it can be h-u-g-e!

Come on, Democrats! This race is ours to lose in 2004-- just look at the poll numbers! "Unnamed Democrat" still kick's the Shrub's butt by a majority of votes! We can win this one, and win it big!

Yes, it's a daunting task ahead of us, but giving into cynicism is not the solution. Maybe if more of our campaigns reflected that, non-voters would be more enthusiastic about voting for Democrats.

It's worth a try. :D

[CMT]

1. I'm not

the positive economic news with GDP is not going to have a long lasting effect imo. Those numbers were enhanced by a one-time tax rebate for families. I don't see anything encouraging yet about the job market and Iraq is still a big mess. I don't think we can take the 2004 presidential election for granted (and we won't) but I'm not pessimistic about it either.

[StClone]

5. Anybody have a link to the Huge job cut numbers for October?

Kinda contrasts with the Economic Bump Bush claimed resposibility for.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

11. What job cuts????? Didn't you hear....

the economy "boomed" last month!!! Bush is our hero and we should all worship him! The "Bush Economy" is here and the rich love it!

(SATIRE)

:eyes:

[West Coast Democrat]

22. Here is a link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031104/us_nm/economy_layoffs_challenger_dc_3

Job Cuts Surged 125 Percent in Oct.-Challenger

[no name no slogan]

18. Agreed

The good numbers are an anomoly, unless the interest rates go down and everybody refinances again. That ain't going to happen.

I know 2004 is going to be rough, but we've got a lot of issues that naturally fall right into our laps: healthcare, living wages, economic anxiety-- even the "war on terror". Personally, I feel better about this year than 1992. I don't see a third-party Ross Perot-like threat on the horizon-- IF WE CAN GET OUR VOTERS EXCITED!

[lovedems]

19. Do you know alot about the rebate?

I was under the impression that it was a rebate off next years taxes. So, as the parents of 4, we got our 1,600 but doesn't that somehow effect us when we do our taxes this year? Will we have to claim it as additional income? My main point is, are people going to be pissed off when they do their taxes? I am a tax moran so somebody please explain!

[eissa]

2. I completely agree

Although I'm a news junkie, it has gotten to the point where I can barely tolerate watching anything related to next year's election because most of the pundits (including our own democrats) go on and on about Bush and how he's "unbeatable." WTF!!! Why the hell is he unbeatable?! What on earth has he done to garner such praise, and from our own ranks no less?! Shrub has handed us a silver platter full of lies and scandals, but our stupid democratic "leaders" have done NOTHING to capitalize on any of them. Bush IS beatable. We beat him in 2000 and we WILL do it again in 2004, no matter who the democratic candidate is!

[Hep]

3. I'll be enthusiastic for some

but for others, I'll just beg people to vote D despite how much of an ass they're voting for.

[LanternNYC]

8. ship of fools

i want to be optimistic, but i have this nagging doubt about just how dumb the general public can be. (i mean, look at the california recall, for god's sake!)

so far, nearly every line of crap this administration has fed to the public has been embraced like gospel truth. sure, there are some dents showing in bush's armor, but i won't be surprised if he wins re-election. (i also won't be in the states if it happens.)

[newyawker99]

23. Hi LanternNYC!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Nay]

24. Yeah, hi, Lantern, and welcome. I feel just like you do -- Bush

isn't unbeatable because he's worth a shit, he may be unbeatable because of the idiocy of the electorate. The idiots just have not suffered enough pain, and suffered long enough, for it to turn on the dim bulb in their closet-like minds. That may take another 4 years of Bush, in which case we are all fucked anyway.

That's what a lot of us are scared about, and are getting our immigration papers in order for.

[NewJeffCT]

4. I'm from new england

It's our nature to be pessimistic - after all, we grew up with the Red Sox, so New Englanders are used to disappointment.

[no name no slogan]

12. I can relate-- I'm from Minnesota after all

where our great progressive Senator was replaced with Dick Cheney's hand-picked lapdog, where the Vikings have YET to win a Super Bowl in 35 years, where a "nice" day in winter means it gets up to 0° and you only have to move three feet of snow from your driveway, and where our cherished tradition of a social safety net is being shredded by a serious of irresponsible carpetbaggers who have no clue of what the social contract is.

But I feel MUCH more optimistic about this year than, say, 2000, or 1992. All I ever felt w/ Gore and Clinton at the head of our ticket was this great big sinking sensation, and the feeling that we'd compromised even before we made it to the bargaining table.

But not this time, even though our elections are being "stolen" from us and whatever else the tinfoil-hatters want to throw up against us.

[radwriter0555]

6. because HISTORICALLY, the GOP Cheats and Steals formerly legitimate

elections.

Why should we be OPTIMISTIC? You act as if our elections are still fairly run, open and honest, when in fact the opposite is true.

The gop has hijacked and destroyed our election process. I should feel good about this?

[no name no slogan]

16. Take the tinfoil hat off, and see the rest of the country

I don't know about the elections in your part of the country, but up here in MN we still have VERY honest elections, with the highest voter turnout rates in the nation (along with same-day and motor-voter registration, and a very low incidence of ballot fraud).

The Diebolds and Repub operatives do not control the whole country-- yet. There's still many places where they don't have the same control that they have in places like Florida or Texas.

Elections have been "stolen" many times in our past, by both Repubs and Democrats-- remember all the dead folks in Chicago who voted for Kennedy? However, that doesn't mean that we give up even trying to vote for something different.

I prefer the Wellstone approach-- grassroots activism and civil disobedience, coupled with electoral participation. Winning without compromising to get elected.

[MuseRider]

7. Well

it comes and goes with me. Right now, pessimistic. Tomorrow? We will see. It does not mean I quit fighting.

[liberalmike27]

9. Media

Clearly, the media is putting this idea into people's heads, just as they act as if Dean can't win. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unless people understand that the media, owned and operated by very large and rich corporations, just like in 2004, are trying to reinstall Bush, then they will be duped.

Examples:
The continued attempts to examine entry of Hillary and Gore into the contest. What results? A feeling that the current stock is inferior. Of course there is no shortage of examples of pundits directly calling democrats names. Pathetic is beocome the word of choice. It would seem Tucker Carlson, for instance, has made calling anything Begala says pathetic, his whole 2004 strategy. You have to admit, defending Bush is a nearly impossible task, so this technique is used to influence minds.

Clearly Gore should have been the overwhelming winner in 2000, but thanks to the media's unforgiving horrible trashing of Gore, and ignoring almost all of Bush's foibles, it became an even race.

If you aren't aware they are trying to manipulate you--and most people would be hard-pressed to be aware with every Republican calling the media liberal--then you will likely be manipulated. We need to hear more liberals and Democrats going on television, and calling the media conservatively biased. Only then will we put this perception that the media is liberal to bed.

[WinstonChurchill]

10. I'm Afraid for the Senate

I'm trying to be realistic. I can see the Repugs picking up senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana (if Breaux retires) and maybe even South Dakota where Daschle is not doing well because of his lobbyist wife and a new $2 million home in DC, which does not sit well with farmers in South Dakota.

If this happens and Dubya is still Prez, they will ram through fascist judges and young women will be bleeding in back alleys from coat hanger abortions.

Yes, I am pessimistic on this.

[rucky]

13. BBV n/t

[Jacobin]

14. The media will slime the Dem nominee to death

by November of 2004, any TV watching Murkin will think that failing to vote for Smirk is a treasonous activity.

[Stargleamer]

15. This is Why, No Name

From a recent AP article:

"Bush may well be running on a Ronald Reagan economy instead of his father's, said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. . . . .

``I suspect a declining jobless rate should help President Bush in 2004,'' Sohn said. ``That's what happened to Reagan in 1984. If our economic outlook unfolds, the economy could be a plus for President Bush.''

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com, agreed: ``The most likely scenario is we'll get enough jobs so it won't be the issue Democrats need to oust the president.'' About 100,000 new jobs per month is likely over the next few months, he said."

Also, pessimistic Democrats see the mult-millions that Bush has raised for his re-election, will have a negative effect.

[no name no slogan]

17. If we insist on playing by Repub rules, we've already lost.

What about 1992? Joblessness was also on the decrease, and the economy was also recovering from a recession. People were plenty pessimistic then, too. But somehow, Clinton got his plurality and we still won.

But if we're going to play the Repubs big money game, we might as well not even show up.

THAT's most of the problem RIGHT THERE. EVERYBODY seems to think that Money == MESSAGE. But that ain't always the case.

Wellstone won in 1990 with 1/10th of his opponents' $$, but he waged a witty, optimistic campaign that resonated with voters. Hell, even a number of Repubs crossed over because he was so "different" from what had come before.

And Wellstone is not an anomoly, either. Other candidates have conducted similar campaigns and have won, even when outspent by wealthy opponents.


WE CAN WIN THIS if we wage the same kind of campain. However, most Dems are resolute that just because BushCo has the $$ that we need to do the same to compete.

[lovedems]

20. Look at this record! I am not at all pessimistic!

(I got this as an email and I have posted it before but it is good.)

I attacked and took over two countries.

I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US
Treasury.

I shattered the record for the biggest annual
deficit in history (not easy!).
I set an economic record for the most personal
bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the
history of the stock market.

I am the first president in decades to execute a
federal prisoner.

In my first year in office I set the all-time
record for most days on vacation by any president in
US history (tough to beat my dad's record, but I did).

After taking the entire month of August off for
vacation, I presided over the worst security failure
in US history.

I set the record for most campaign fund raising trips
by any president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million
Americans lost their jobs.

I cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work
Americans than any other president in US history.

I set the all-time record for most real estate
foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to
administration positions than any president in US
history.

I set the record for the fewest press conferences
of any president, since the advent of TV.

I signed more laws and executive orders amending
the Constitution than any other US president in
history.

I presided over the biggest energy crises in US
history and refused to intervene when corruption was
revealed.

I cut health care benefits for war veterans.

I set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15
million people), shattering the record for protest
against any person in the history of mankind.

I dissolved more international treaties than any
president in US history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and
unaccountable of any in US history.

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in US history. (The poorest
multimillionaire, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil
tanker named after her.)

I am the first president in US history to have
all 50 states of the Union simultaneously struggle
against bankruptcy.

I presided over the biggest corporate stock market
fraud in any market in any country in the history of
the world.

I am the first president in US history to order a
US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign
nation, and I did so against the will of the
United Nations and the vast majority of the
international community.

I have created the largest government department
bureaucracy in the history of the United States,
called the "Bureau of Homeland Security"(only one
letter away from BS).

I set the all-time record for biggest annual
budget spending increases, more than any other
president in US history (Reagan was tough to beat, but
I did it!!).

I am the first president in US history to compel
the United Nations remove the US from the Human Rights
Commission.

I am the first president in US history to have
the United Nations remove the US from the Elections
Monitoring Board.

I removed more checks and balances, and have the
least amount of congressional oversight than any
presidential administration in US history.

I rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.

I withdrew from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners
of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva
Conventions.

I am the first president in US history to refuse
United Nations election inspectors access during the
2002 US elections.

I am the all-time US (and world) record holder
for most corporate campaign donations.


I think we will see a change in the air when we have our candidate! Bu$hco. has given the dems a lot of ammunition!

[RichM]

21. Didn't you answer your own question? The first half of your post gives

about 5 reasons why the Democratic Party, in its current incarnation, is incapable of arousing enthusiasm. And there are many other things that you haven't mentioned, as well.

The party is afraid to fight on issues where it's right. On other issues, it's complicit with Bush. Therefore, everyone except die-hard party loyalists despise it for its cowardice & spinelessness.

It doesn't know how to play the game as well as the Republicans. It has less cash. Therefore, it's logistically unable to compete. It has neither the strategy, the tactics, nor the money.

It's so desperate that one of its leading candidates is not even a Democrat. This rightly gives people the impression that the party would try ANYTHING -- even dressing in tutus or gorilla suits -- if these measures had the slightest chance of working.

I'd say there's a pretty strong case to be made for pessimism.