Unthinkable? Concede the 2004 Presidency and focus on locals?

[jerryster]

I know it sucks. And no, I am not voting for Smirky under any circumstances. I will support the Dem nominee. But I have several pessimistic concerns. To begin with I am disheartened by the Dem candidates slogging it out on each other. There is plenty to criticize Smirky about but it seems to me that the majority of ink is about the Dem's criticism of each other. So Bush skates.

Another problem is the economy. Up to now it has been a "jobless recovery" and a legitimate source of concern for the country. Now there are reports of 50,000 jobs being added each of the last 2 months. I know, I know. If you do the math by next election there will still be a net loss since the robbery of 2000 of over two million jobs. BUT, any good campaign manager will have no trouble pointing to the gains and say look how it's going. And that leads me to...

Karl Rove. Although I refer to this administration as the Cheney ventriloquist show it is of course Rove's show. The war is his - remember him telling repugnicant candidates in 2002 to "focus on the war"? it was repugnant to say the least, BUT IT WORKED. Andrew Greeley wrote the other day that Rove will whisper in Smirky's ear in spring to declare victory in Iraq and get out. Since his is the voice that Smirky listens to above all else, if Rove says to do it it will be done. Now the Bush campaign will ironically chant the mantra of James Carville that "it's the economy, stupid". And since Bush learned - though he'd never admit it in a million years - how to run a winning campaign by studying Bill Clinton he will take that mantra and run with it. Sorry, DUers, but it will be persuasive,even with record deficits. Also, we can't be in the position of actually hoping that the war in Iraq drags on as that is morally repugnant no matter what one's political leanings. So if Rove tells Bush to get out and he does and jobs are being restored what are we left with? Plenty, but that's still a problem.

The issues we are left with are vital, important issues that the repugnicants are on the wrong side of: the environment, women's reproductive rights,health care, gay rights, affirmative action, stem cell research, social programs that work well, etc. However, as I said above, these are not the issues that will decide the election. Why? To quote Carville again, "it's the economy, stupid". People vote pocketbook issues. Who will be able to mount an effective argument that the economy is still bad if the US has again the Clinton Triple Crown; low inflation,low interest rates and job growth? OK, he actually hit a Grand Slam because there was a surplus as well.Who would be suicidal enough to try that? Anyone who does in the face of evidence to the contrary is going to come off as someone who actually wants the economy to be lousy and anyone who comes off that way loses. Guaranteed.

As an aside to all this, one analysis I read recently of the partial birth abortion ban said that just by signing it, Bush may get a significant number of the 4 million evangelicals who stayed home in 2000 to come out in 2004. That would be disatrous for us, especially since African American voters may stay home. (By the way, have any of the Dems brought up the issue of reparations?) I also have to say that none of the candidates on the Dem side seem to be firing up the populace as a whole.

So while I am not suggesting not voting in 2004 I am wondering if energy and money (and the other thing Bush learned from Clinton, correctly - is that WHOEVER HAS THE MOST MONEY WINS and it is Smirky who has the most money and it just keeps rolling in) would be better spent on candidates for Governor, State Legislators and US Congress and Senate seats. That way we could keep Smirky in check.

I almost feel the need to apologize for my pessimism. I want nothing more than to see this guy share another historical footnote with his father as re-election losers. Realistically, though, the son is much more politically astute than the father ever was. So let's face it. We're in trouble in 2004.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Important to do both

We must elect a Dem president, or, I fear, we will become a facist state. But it is also very important that we work to elect as many Dems to Congress as possible. The new president will have a horrid mess to clean up, and the more people in Congress to help him, the better.

[bowens43]

2. Not this again.

Let's just give up and hand the elction to bush. No, thanks.

[kalian]

3. Might as well....

given that the selections will be rigged one way or another....
As for the locals...what good will that do? :shrug:

[jerryster]

10. locals

Many of the items on Smirky's agenda will be or already are in the hands of the states. For example, even if Roe v Wade is overturned it won't automatically outlaw abortions. It will then become a state by state issue. So I believe it's important to have as many people in office as possible at local levels who share our ideology and recognize how hurtful Smirky's domestic initiatives are.

[Stupdworld]

4. relax willya

giving up on the national level and handing it to bush is unthinkable. he is still very very vulnerable as long as iraqnam continues. economy or not, people see things there are worsening. fear not. the local level is still important, but we should not stop fighting.

[jerryster]

11. Agreed, with one note

You mentioned Iraqnam continuing. As I said in my post, it may not and a lot of it depends on Rove. And ending it is a good thing.

[AP]

5. subject line and first paragraph were so weak, I couldn't read the whole..

...post, but I didn't want you to think that the absense of responses to the substance meant an absense of disagreement.

[jerryster]

12. Your critique

I'll try to write stronger openings in the future. However, are you saying you disagree with what I wrote EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T READ IT? Sorry, that doesn't cut it with me.

[AP]

14. I can't imagine a single rational argument for conceding 2004.

[AP]

16. Even if you think you're going to lose, if you don't run a forceful

presidential election, you'll never win at any other level -- you won't wing governmor's races, senate races, congressional races, mayor's races, and you won't even win the dog catcher's race.

D.U.h.

[MIScott87]

6. Whoever has the most VOTES, not money, wins

Bush can have all the money in the world, but in the end, the winner is the one who has more votes. (In this case, electoral votes)

Bush outspent Gore 3-2 in 2000, but look who (really) won?

Back to 2004, I know, the polls are rarely, if ever, more than an indication. However, a recent poll says that 38% of people surveyed would vote to re-elect Bush, while 44% would vbote for the Democrat.

[radiclib]

7. Those Unnamed Democrat vs. Shrub polls are meaningless

As soon as the chimp is paired against a specific Dem, his numbers jump significantly. Once the bastards are able to smear the nominee, the real game pretty much ends as soon as it begins . I hate to agree with the original post, but I'm packing for New Zealand.

[jerryster]

13. Don't move yet

I hate to agree with my own post. I want this undeserving spoiled brat out of the Oval Office as much as anyone. I just feel that there is a lot of wishful thinking here at DU. Still, I hope for a breakthrough. Maybe it'll happen.

[HawkerHurricane]

8. Anybody remember 1991?

Bush (the greater) had poll numbers soooo high that the 'front tier' Democrats didn't run (allegedly) because they knew they couldn't win; so only the 'second string' ran for office because the best ones were waiting to beat Quayle in '96...

We all know what the result of that was!

[jerryster]

15. True

That fact is the one thing that gives me hope. However, none of the current Dems is Clinton. And as I said, the son is much more politically astute than the father. Clinton himself acknowledged as much.

[goobergunch]

9. No

According to my analysis, we have a better chance of retaking the Presidency than retaking Congress.

[jerryster]

17. Your analysis

Like your link and the ass kicking icon. Very cool. I have to mention, though, that your link listed Kentucky and Mississippi as toss-ups. Both went repugnicant. Do you know what the final margins were? I'm asking because I don't know and would like to know how accurate the toss-up prediction was.

[goobergunch]

18. The site has been updated, here's the margins

KY: 55%-45%
MS: 53%-45%

The site that you saw can be accessed via http://www.freewebs.com/goobergunch/gpr0302.html .

[jerryster]

23. Thanks

I appreciate the update. Why do you think the margins reflect so differently from a projected toss-up?

[genius]

19. If Dean gets the nomination, we might as well forget about the Presidency.

The problem is that, between re-districting and electronic voting, we probably don't have a chance of taking back Congress. Why isn't the DNC doing something about the voter irregulaties in this week's elections? We need a Party chair who cares.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. I'm not as pessimistic as you

but electing Dems to state and local offices is absolutely essential. We ought to be urging people to vote a straight Dem ticket all the way down to dog catcher if they hate Bush's policies.

This is a point that Kucinich makes constantly.

Whoever the Dem president is, he will be stymied at every step if he doesn't have more Dems in Congress and in the states.

[burr]

21. conceding the Presidency hurts local campaigns???

If the Republicans had taken such an attitude, it's questionable whether or not they would have ever taken back the House and Senate.

Despite the bad years Republicans had in 1948, 1964, and 1996...every other year that Republicans stuck with their Presidential candidates gave them satisfying local results. It's no wonder that a party like ours, which ditches its own candidates not just on the Presidential level...but at the state level, is now decaying.

Unity is even more important for a minority party than it is for the majority party, because we can only win if they are divided and we are united!

[jerryster]

22. Well said

Excellent post, Burr! I agree with what you said. We have to be united and while I remain pessimistic about sending smirky back to Texas I never meant to suggest disunity. As you said, there is enough of it in the Dem party. The repugnicants do seem united, unfortunately, and obsessed with retaining the Presidency. Obsession can hurt them (think Nixon) or help (think singlemindedness).

[burr]

24. But remember this...

Republican lost in 1960, 1992, and 1976...but everyone of those years they picked up seats in the House and Senate. And they never lost seats in the other Presidential elections between 48-2000...other than the three I mentioned earlier.

So the point is you cannot be taken seriously on the local level, unless you are willing to risk putting up a serious national Presidential candidate and lose.