Democrats are in a real Catch-22 if they do not beat George W Bush...

[kentuck]

For example, if Howard Dean is the nominee and he goes on to lose to Bush, there will undoubtedly be those Democrats that will say, "See, I told you so...we cannot run liberal candidates like George McGovern and Howard Dean..."

On the other hand, if someone like Lieberman is the nominee, and he loses in the same manner, the argument would be very similar. There would be those that would say, "See, I told you so...we have to get rid of the DLC and their hold upon our Party..." It's a Catch-22 no matter who would lose to Bush.

But, on the other hand, if Dean or a "liberal" were to win the nomination, the Party would assume that this is the new direction that the Party is going. But if a moderate, like Lieberman, were to win, the Party would assume that the new direction for the Party is the same as the old direction that we had with Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

However, we should trust the wishes of the voters in the primary process, win or lose. If we choose Howard Dean as the candidate for our Party, and he loses, we should not say, "Well, we should have picked a more "moderate" candidate." We should not assume that the other person would have done any better.

[illini]

1. We will just have to make sure we Krush *.

NT

[frank frankly]

2. I don't see the world existing past 2009 if BushCo wins again

so worrying about political spectrum issues probably won't resonate with the proles and robot army.

good post, though, kentuck. as always.

:hi:

[tridim]

3. Good point

If we lose in 04, we'll never win again. That's how serious this election is.

[economic justice]

4. Every Generation

Every generation has an election they say this about. We should beat Bush though so it's not an issue.

[LeftyLover]

5. WTF is happening to our side?!?!?!

I've been doing a serious reality check lately.

I'm a optimist but our side has taken some serious beatings lately.
I thought California was a lock with Davis staying in office, then we lose Kentucky and Mississippi. This is after some major losses in 02.

Why is the country seemingly moving to the right?

We are the civilized side!! What is it we are saying that the public isn't picking up on???!!!!????

I think Dean is our only chance at the nomination in 04 but if he is landslided we could lose footing for a long time!!! Has anyone thought of this?

We could potentially lose 5-6 more Senate seats and 10 House seats!
Doesn't this scare anyone?

[Resistance Is Futile]

7. What has happened

"onservatives, especially conservative think tanks, have framed virtually every issue from their perspective. They have put a huge amount of money into creating the language for their worldview and getting it out there. Progressives have done virtually nothing. Even the new Center for American Progress, the think tank that John Podesta is setting up, is not dedicated to this at all. I asked Podesta who was going to do the Center's framing. He got a blank look, thought for a second and then said, "You!" Which meant they haven't thought about it at all. And that's the problem. Liberals don't get it. They don't understand what it is they have to be doing."

Read the rest:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

The situation is not going to improve until 'liberal' ceases to be synonymous with 'satan follower' and 'democrat' ceases to be synonymous with 'traitor.'

[LeftyLover]

12. Huh?

Conservative think tanks cost us these losses in the past 2 years?

We had the huge anti war movement going for us, we had the failing economy, we had all the Gore bad feelings to work with too!

Now here we are a year away from a election and on the wrong end of a trend that means we can possibly lose the Presidency and more Senate and House seats!

If the economy keeps improving and we should happen to capture Saddam or soemthing like that we could end up being landslided right out of power AND legitimacy for years to come!!!!

Get real, we are in some serious dire straits here! I hope Dean can do it but all it takes is a small combination of things to go wrong for us and it can be over quickly!

[Resistance Is Futile]

17. Read the article

The <cough> 'left' is imploding because the extreme right has spent thirty years redefining the language of political discourse to suit their own ends. Effective opposition cannot exist in this environment because the ruling party can destroy any opposition message simply by redefining the language to change the meaning of the message. The mechinism at work here is that the ruling party denies the opposition the right to exist by denying the opposition the language it needs to make its message.

Read 1984 to see how control over language controls the political landscape. Then watch Fox News to see how control over language works in real-life.

[Minstrel Boy]

19. depressing as hell, and absolutely correct

The far right owns what passes for acceptable discourse in America. This is the fruit of their 30 years hard labour. Good luck undoing it.

[kentuck]

28. People are not swarming to vote for the Repubs either...

The turnout for the Dems was terrible in the last two governor races...but it wasn't that great for the Repubs either. The Repubs support is a mile wide and an inch deep, whereas the Dems support is an inch wide and a mile deep. The support that is only an inch deep is the one that is most like to dry up as soon as something goes not according to plan...

[really-looney]

23. Why is the country moving to the right

I don't have the answer to that. It make no sense to me but if the country is moving to the right, do you think that nominating a candidate from the left of the pack will help.

I say this as a supporter of one of the more liberal candidates in the race. I am still proud to be a liberal but if my candidate does not win the nomination, I am very ABB as I hope all others on this board are!!!!!

The only way we win is to unite behind the democratic nominee and support him or her to the gates of hell itself which is what this election will be.

No more whining and bullshit about how a person voted on one issue or another. Look at who we are voting against. There is not a Democrat in the field (including Holy Joe) who would not do a better job that AWOL.

[Resistance Is Futile]

29. Take back the language

It doesn't matter who gets nominated. There will be no progress in moving America towards the center (there is no substantive American left) until the center can build up enough of a propaganda infrastructure that most people no longer associate 'democratic party' with 'tax-and-spend wellfare queen traitor terrorists.' The center cannot advance until it can make its arguments without fear of them being destroyed at birth by the right wing propaganda machine.

[MattNC]

10. care to justify

this statement?

[Resistance Is Futile]

16. Republican maximalism

Redistricting.
Delegitimization of opposition forces.
Destruction of opposition fund raising infrastructure.
Unconstrainted economic rent-seeking among Republican business interests.
Exclusive direction of federal benefits to party supporters.
BBV.
Electoral fraud.

Connect the dots and the picture reads 'one party state.'

[Upfront]

6. Dean

will not lose!

[Resistance Is Futile]

8. Cuthulu

will not lose!

Empty platitudes are easy. A winning strategy is much harder.

[ShaneGR]

9. Or we could run Clark.....

And kick Bush's ass all over the place.

My 2 cents.

[0rganism]

13. The more I see from Clark, the more I think he's the one

The rightwing has NOTHING on him, except what they concoct out of whole cloth. He's got some potential problems with the Kosovo intervention, but nothing that would cause the Democratic base to flee en masse. His positions on domestic issues, whatever they were twenty years ago, are certainly within the liberal mainstream now.

He's got the look of a leader, and the military creds to back it up. If he's the nominee, I like our chances.

[maggrwaggr]

20. I'm starting to think that way too

but mainly I think the country needs Clark at this point. Because he's a transitional candidate. He's a man who used to vote republican who has seen the light and switched over.

This sets a REALLY great example.

Everybody else just looks like someone who wants "their" side to win.

Clark comes across as a guy who's conscience and intelligence has led him our way.

Plus he's tough. Plus he's a military expert like nobody else.

I've been supporting Dean and will continue to, but I'm starting to think that this country needs Clark more than it needs Dean this time.

[mlawson]

30. I think he passes the 'beer buddy' test.

And mindless as that is, it really matters to the masses in the middle. If he is not LIKABLE, he could be FDR, Lincoln and JFK all rolled into one, but he would NOT win!

Plus, there is a good chance we could win a lot of military votes; veterans would vote Dem, if it's for Clark.

But, I don't know if all this fits into the DNCs plans for next Spring.

[Redneck Socialist]

32. "Beer buddy test..."

...may indeed be mindless, but it is an awfully good predictor of electoral success.

[absyntheNsugar]

11. This election

We must win big. Not 51% big or even 57% big but over 60% big. A majority won't cut it this time (didn't in 2000) and it won't cut it in 2004. The Repubs who control the machine will weasel out of their defeat once again.

And facing the BBV boxes, we have to turn out a 60%+ win. The machines are built and programmed to give the Repubs and edge, but not over the top (otherwise people might catch on.)

[0rganism]

14. A 60% supermajority? GOOD LUCK!

Man, we'll be lucky to get that in the major urban areas, let alone any of the states as a whole. This is going to be a nail-biter, no question.

[absyntheNsugar]

15. We'll need luck and more

We're facing up against an administration that we know cheats, and voting machines without a paper trail.

Without 60% we'll be dead....

[beyurslf]

21. If we need 60%

to win, we're out of luck I think. The country is too divided.
Only a few Presidents in history have won 60% or more of the popular vote. LBJ--and we know what happened to him. Nixon--need I say more? I think FDR managed to get over 60 in one of his 4 elections.

[3CardMonte]

25. Reagan

in what could be called the biggest presidential landslide victory in history (84) didn't even get 60%. 60% is not going to happen.

Bush could have unemployment at 3%, Osama and Saddam at Gitmo, and the stock market at 20,000 and he wouldn't get 60%.

[dolstein]

18. "We should not assume that the other person would have done any better"

I don't think we should assume anything one way or another. But I think the party ought to look at exit polls and any other information that would identify the reasons why votes who supported Clinton and/or Gore in previous elections did not support the 2004 nominee. I think we have to remain open to the possibility that the party nominee did not reflect the views of the electorate as closely as other nominees, or had other weaknesses that other potential candidates didn't have.

[really-looney]

27. Sorry there will be no exit polls

AWOL says no more exit polls it makes it harder to steal an election

[HazMat]

22. Sorry. If Dean gets smoked,

like many of us are saying he would, Dean and his followers will be
held accountable, and would be hated more than Ralph Nader.

The reason is that people are telling the Dean supporters this from now, but they don't seem to concerned with electablity.

We have candidates who are electable - Dean is not one of them.

And Dean isn't a liberal, but he may be too far to the left on the one area that counts - foreign policy.

Only someone with strong national security credentials can win this time around. Kerry gives us the best shot, followed by Clark (if he improves his campaigning skills).

[3CardMonte]

26. Clinton

was laughed at and considered a joke candidate by many when he first entered the primaries. And Bush was considered unbeatable at the start of the primaries. Clinton went on to 8 years in the White House.

Howard Dean is electable. There are some in the primary who are not electable under any circumstances (Sharpton for one). Fire and enthusiasm are contageous and Howard can ignite that among the electorate. Will he do it an go on to victory? That is debateable. But a flat out stance that he can not do it is unacceptable.

I am in the ABB camp, so the above opinion is about as unbiased a look as you will find.

But if I was forced to put a wager down between the two leading the pack now (Dean and Kerry) as to who has a better shot at beating Bush. I would put my money on Dean.

[poskonig]

31. Purging the party of Dean supporters would be stupid.

The rational thing to do would be to suck up the pain, stay united, and get to work with Hillary or Gore in 2008.

[GiovanniC]

24. Love the Signature Quote n/t