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

[Apocalypse]

Gore didn't win Tennessee and Edwards didn't win SC. They should give up on that strategy. Although it is arguable that Gore really isn't a WASP because he believes in some Gaian earth mother.

[Dinner]

Didn't Clinton get Tennessee in 1992 and 1996? The Dems version of the southern strategy certainly worked for Carter in 1976 as well.

Tennessee was very close in 2000 and that loss can mainly be chalked up to Gore allowing whiny handlers to micro-manage him instead of aggressively campaigning about wedge issues he cared about. The handlers basically had Gore go quiet or at best react to Bush spin instead of staying on the offensive. The handlers argued Gore had a big enough lead to coast into an election day win and his biggest worry was saying something to offend people and upset his lead at the last moment. That was dumb advice and it cost Gore the Presidency.

I won't even bother talking about the strategy in 2004 since Kerry was fatally flawed from the beginning. Kerry was a terrible candidate and the product of a committee process which figured any weeny could beat Bush after the disaster of the first four years. It turns out most candidates likely could of beat Bush as long as they had the balls to keep repeating the facts of Bush's lies and failures. Instead Kerry was a wall flower more suited for taking committee minutes then for confronting lies and spin.

[DaShi]

But he came pretty damn close.

[Zkribbler]

The Dems chose Kerry because they believed that Gore's 2000 loss was a result of his excessive charisma.

[Apocalypse]

Clinton got a lot of states.

In either case, you are missing the obvious best match.

Obama Bi(nla)den

[DaShi]

Romney beat you to it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I said the GOP may not win New York, but by making New York competitve the Dems would have less resources for the "purple" states:

NH, MI, OH, PA, FL, IA, WI, MN, OR, WA, NV, NM, MT, CO, MO, WV.

Not a bad list. Montana is not a swing state though.

Add Arkansas, Virginia and Arizona to the list for the democrats, and New Jersey and Maine to the list for the republicans.

All the others aren't going to flip.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Wesley Clark. He'd be a very canny pick for her.

Yeah, that rumor has been around for a while and she may go that direction. Having a former general as your Veep helps with the not strong on "our enemies" thing.

[Dinner]

Of course in 2004 they thought having a real honest to god decorated war hero as the candidate would help too.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You keep them in Veep... because then all that matters is their past war record and not what they actually believe.

[Patroklos]

Of course in 2004 they thought having a real honest to god decorated war hero as the candidate would help too.

Then why didn't they run one?

[Arrian]

Heh. And there you have it, folks.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Not so much. John Kerry served his time, to be sure (even if I am not so happy with what he did right after it), but he is no General Clark.

I have no bones with General Clark claiming his backround would be beneficial for policy decisions, as it obviously will. 1st LT Kerry, not so much (and he was hardly a war "hero").

[Arrian]

Only by comparison to a certain member of the Texas Air National Guard (or whatever it was). Only by comparison...

But **** it. That's over and done with. We're supposed to be discussing how the next bad President will be elected.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

Only by comparison to a certain member of the Texas Air National Guard (or whatever it was). Only by comparison...

I am sorry you hold such a poor opinion of our National Guard, our active duty servicmen standing the line in Germany at the time, etc. etc.

But **** it. That's over and done with. We're supposed to be discussing how the next bad President will be elected.

As to the OP, I hardly see why anyone would assume the Dems have no chance. They have had a poor record of doing themselves in lately, but that is hardly only a characteristic they have. National politics is a fine balancing act. One uncarfully chosen word, literaly, can screw it all up.

It is silly to count the Dems out.