Those poor, poor Republicans . . . . .

[Odin]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If the Dems could figure out what they stood for other than "we're not Republicans," and maybe get a LEADER tossed in the mix someplace (and someone with a smidgeon of charisma might be helpful too), they could demolish the poor GoP.

Russ Feingold seems to be trying, but not effectively, it seems.

[Velociryx]

Neither party has offered up a GOOD presidential candidate in my lifetime.

I'm not hopeful that the trend will be broken any time soon.

-=Vel=-

[AnnC]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Enter Hillary....

Even though I think Warner-Obama would be a better ticket, Hillary has a number of advantages specifically for a 2008 run:

1. She deeply offends right-wingers, but not centrists. And in 2008, offending right-wingers will be good politics.

2. She can run on the Clinton legacy, which looks better with each passing year. With the advantage of hindsight, voters can see that the Clinton administration was far more competent (and ironically, more conservative) than the Bush administration has been.

3. After eight years of Bush, voters will be nostalgic for the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years; and Hillary could easily ride that nostalgia into the White House.

Confidential to Vel: If you don't like the candidates, vote the party. The party affiliation tells you what kind of people the winning candidate will bring into office with him/her.

[Japher]

and one big strike... SHE'S A SHE!




well, sorta

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Here's the key data:



The Dems are romping all over the GOP, even on issues that are traditionally GOP strength -- and they're doing this without having any coherent set of alternative policies.

The problem is, because of this, the Dems have no incentive to develop alternative policies; they could actually win while not standing for anything -- which would be preferable to more of the GOP, but not by much.

not quite. 59% of respondants said they would vote for, and liked their own representative. its just those other bastards they don't like.

[Proteus_MST]

A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district, while 40 percent support the Republican candidate

There can only be one solution:
Diebold voting machines

[Patroklos]

Ummmm,

1. No, Centrists of all kinds run from Hillary like the plague. Things like her "plantation" comment and that more recent one show she is squarely on the Left fringe, even if her voting record is just left. She starts pulling those brown nosing moves during campaign speeches...

2. Right moderates don't look back on the Clinton years as Utopia, they look back at Bush I and Regean as Utopia. As far as legacy goes, I think alot of voters don't like this trend of the "family buisness" that Senior and Junior just pulled. If anything, they want to clear the air, someone new and refreshing from either party.

3. Maybe for the Left and left moderates, but the right, right moderates and centrists do not have any such nostalgia. I think swing groups are just sick and tired of the two decade Clinton/Bush era period.

[Japher]

I won't vote Killary because of the wealth tax idea she keeps yapping about


(interesting typo)

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Velociryx
If the Dems could figure out what they stood for other than "we're not Republicans," and maybe get a LEADER tossed in the mix someplace (and someone with a smidgeon of charisma might be helpful too), they could demolish the poor GoP.

Sadly, this does not appear to be in the cards.

-=Vel=-

True, true.

As much as I loath Knute Gingrich, I have to admit he did have the savviness to turn the Republican Party from an opposition party into an alternative party.

Sadly, no Democratic leader has the same smarts.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Japher
I won't vote Killary because of the wealth tax idea she keeps yapping about

(interesting typo)

So, are you rich, or are you just so concerned with the rich that you're willing to let your children pick up the tab for the taxes they should be paying.

[Japher]

I'm not rich, but I don't think people with my money should be taxed just for having money. Tax a person when they earn it and tax 'em when the spend it. What's with putting an expiration on it's worth?

[Zkribbler]

It's the circulation of money (i.e. commerce) that creates wealth. Sitting on a big pile of money doesn't do anyone any good.

If I had my d'ruthers, I'd ruther tax static wealth than tax earnings and spending.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
As much as I loath Knute Gingrich, I have to admit he did have the savviness to turn the Republican Party from an opposition party into an alternative party.

Sadly, no Democratic leader has the same smarts.

The true shame is that legacy has been betrayed by the pack of big tent vote buyers that masquerade as Republicans today.

[Japher]

It's the circulation of money (i.e. commerce) that creates wealth. Sitting on a big pile of money doesn't do anyone any good.

If I had my d'ruthers, I'd ruther tax static wealth than tax earnings and spending.

People already pay luxury taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc... So impossing yet another tax will increase spending or wealth circulation? I don't think so. I think doing so will just create other ways to hide true wealth and secure the US' future to not compete.

Reducing the number of taxes would fair better at encouraging spending. Tax sheltered investment vehicles increase the economy, the application of luxury taxes on certain goods crippled economies... everywhere you look more taxes = bad, less taxes = good. Bush removed the capital gains on dividends... investments went up!

Hilary's, and anyone's for that matter, Wealth tax would prevent people from investing in the economy because those investments and purchases only increase net worth. The only thing that you would be able to spend your money on would be services!

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


There can only be one solution:
Diebold voting machines

As OTBOT long as ALL the voting machines in the US are made by members of Republican National Committee, I think the GOP still has a chance.