Why is no one giving the Dems a chance in '08?

[DanS]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Pay attention, Dan.

I was seriously wondering about the basis of that question. How strong is Giuliani in New York? Is New York in the bag for the Dems no matter?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by DanS
If it's Clinton v. Giuliani, who wins New York?

If it's Obama v. Giuliani, who wins New York?

I was surprised to see Giuliani running so poorly in New Hampshire opposite Romney.

I think these are both really good questions.

Romney has the same geographical card to play in NH as Rudi, but plays better to NH conservatives.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I rather doubt that; the religious right won't want to "swing" the election to a Democrat, and didn't Robertson just endorse Guilani a few weeks ago?

Even so, plenty are put off by a pro-choice Rep candidate. It will be seen as a betrayal to them. Not even lip service will be given to the fundy anti-abortionists.

[Guynemer]

If the GOP nominates someone other than Guilani, NY is in the bag for the blue team. A Guilani nomination makes NY competitive, but I would think that the Dems would likely still win. Can't seem to find a poll of New Yorkers to support that speculation, though.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Honestly, I think that--in spite of the last seven years of utter incompetence at every ****ing level--the GOP are positioning themselves nicely for another victory in 2008. The fact that their main competition remains a rudderless, boneheaded Democratic Party makes the coming GOP victory only more likely.

The Dems certainly haven't grown any balls. They still let Republicans get away with obvious lies and don't ever challenge them. Example: claiming to be for small government while in actuality every Republican President has greatly increased government and the worst offenders since the early 60's have been none other the Reagan and Bush. Democrats don't seem able to organize the type of coordinated media offensives Republicans do; the Republicans are great at everyone using the same talking points and having EVERYONE go after the same issue all over the country at the same time. Getting Democrats to agree on party issues is like herding cats and even on those rare issues everyone agrees the Party leadership can't keep everyone on message so Dems don't get the echo effect the Republicans are so good at creating.

[DanS]

Here's an October poll. According to the poll, New York is in play if Giuliani is the GOP candidate, no matter who he's against. Obama v. Giuliani is a dead heat. Giuliani trails Clinton by 11.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseId=1108

Looking through the state polls, Giuliani is quite the wild card.

[Guynemer]

Well, there you go. The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Guynemer
If the GOP nominates someone other than Guilani, NY is in the bag for the blue team. A Guilani nomination makes NY competitive, but I would think that the Dems would likely still win. Can't seem to find a poll of New Yorkers to support that speculation, though.

I agree with that. It is just a matter of how much spend to be in that fight.

Dem fundraising for the primaries has been incredibly strong. The tightening race between Hillary and Obama will cause both to dig into those war chests.

The question becomes, can the dems match this fund raising zeal foir the general election, and if they can't, what does holding New York against Rudi cost them in those purple states?

A Rudi nomination looks to be the worst case for the dems on the electoral map. While I personally think Fred Thompson would make the best President, I think that Rudi has the best chance in the general election.

Most conservatives think like that. If it becomes Rudi vs. any democrat then

Even so, plenty are put off by a pro-choice Rep candidate. It will be seen as a betrayal to them. Not even lip service will be given to the fundy anti-abortionists.

even the fundies will still vote republican.

I mean really...Hillary has 49% negatives and Obama is the son of muslims? And the fundies are going to stay home and let eithier one of those get elected?

[DanS]

Giuliani has some really strange state numbers -- very atypical.

[Jon Miller]

Guliani is a trial to see if the Republican party even needs to pay lip service to the religious part of their party...

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
I mean really...Hillary has 49% negatives and Obama is the son of muslims? And the fundies are going to stay home and let eithier one of those get elected?

There are a lot of fundies who have abortion as their litmus test issue.

There is also the fear (rightly, I may say) that if they cave on this they have no standing when yelling about abortion being murder, as they've just backed a murderer for the WH.

[Dinner]

I guess we could see a struggle for influence between the principled absolutists and the flexible realists for control of the religious rights hearts and minds (or at least votes).

[jkp1187]

Ah, Democrats: the party of slavery, secession, segregation, and socialism. Well, can't speak for others, I can only speak for me:

Hillary lacks the integrity and honesty of a Nixon, and I refuse to vote for any more members of the Bush-Clinton oligarchy. Which is a pity, because having listened to her in the recent NPR debate, she actually is closest to my own views of the current field of Democrats. So she's out.

Obama just keeps giving me an empty suit vibe....although I might support him if the GOP nominates a complete fool (Romney and Huckabee: I'm looking at YOU GUYS). Plus he gets bonus points because he isn't a baby boomer, and I've personally had enough of the lamest generation.

Edwards? A tool

Biden? " "

Dodd? " "

Kucinich? Actually, if they nominated him, I might actually vote for him. At least he's honest. (Though, to be fair, if 'Snich gets nominated through some sort of act of the Gods, I trust they'd also see fit to engineer the nomination of Ron Paul on the GOP side, and I'd prefer Paul on policy.)

Gravel? He bravely came out in favor of Hamas at the most recent debate. "Tool" doesn't even begin to describe him.

Ultimately, though, my troubles with go down to a simple point: at the end of the day, their core supporters tend to be statist nanny-state types who (pace Gravel) don't seem to recognize that it actually is appropriate for the President of the United States to put American interests ahead of the interests of other countries.

[Apocalypse]

I think if Hillary picks Richardson as the VP, I could see her easily losing. He brings a lot of baggage with him, namely losing nucular secrets to China and hundreds of millions in Enron deals.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by jkp1187
Ah, Democrats: the party of slavery, secession, segregation, and socialism. Well, can't speak for others, I can only speak for me:

Other than socialism, I think the rest of those no longer apply to the current democratic party... the philosophies behind them largely belong to the conservative side of the floor, ie the Republicans (state's rights, etc.) The parties' alignments have shifted just a bit since then (Remember Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, left for the Progressive (Bull Moose) party... )