Iowa and the road to the Whitehouse

[YAZMAN]

Originally Posted by VA Sox Fan

Great points YAZ. And if the Dems want to guarentee a loss in '08, they should nominate Billary.

And then promising that Pelosi will take an even more active role would seal the deal through '12.

[Mr Crunchy]

im not sure that it matters who the democrats nominate
the GOP has dug themselves in shit so deep it just wont matter.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Mr Crunchy

im not sure that it matters who the democrats nominate
the GOP has dug themselves in shit so deep it just wont matter.

The left wing of the Democratic party is intoxicated with power and the thought of gaining the White House. They need to be careful. The country isn't really looking for wholesale changes. Yes, they want Iraqi involvement to end, but other than that... I am not so sure. The Dems will win if they can pick the candidate who can best run at the middle ground. I don't know if Hillary can be can be convincing in that role.

[Paradisecity]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

The left wing of the Democratic party is intoxicated with power and the thought of gaining the White House. They need to be careful. The country isn't really looking for wholesale changes. Yes, they want Iraqi involvement to end, but other than that... I am not so sure. The Dems will win if they can pick the candidate who can best run at the middle ground. I don't know if Hillary can be can be convincing in that role.

I'd have to say that i dsagree with you here a700. There have been sooooo many undecided voters in the last 2 elections, and I truly think they'd vote for likeability and all those other intangibles we havent seen in a candidate in a while.

[rician blast]

Originally Posted by Mr Crunchy

im not sure that it matters who the democrats nominate
the GOP has dug themselves in shit so deep it just wont matter.

You can't win. You know that, don't you? It doesn't matter if you whip us, you'll still be where you were before, at the bottom. And we'll still be the lucky ones at the top with all the breaks. It doesn't matter. Greasers will still be Greasers and Socs will still be Socs. It doesn't matter.

Sorry, I digress.

Anyway, it would seem that the Dems have the upper hand provided they can keep driving home the "need for a change" rhetoric and not get mired in talk about specific solutions to the issues.

[YAZMAN]

Stay gold, Ponyboy, stay gold.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Paradisecity

I'd have to say that i dsagree with you here a700. There have been sooooo many undecided voters in the last 2 elections, and I truly think they'd vote for likeability and all those other intangibles we havent seen in a candidate in a while.

The candidate needs to be likable and in the center. It's a big country, and it is not taking a hard left turn. The Dems will crash and burn if they think so. Kerry didn't run to the left. In the general election, he ran to the center as best he could. Bush was already embattled and yet Kerry still lost, but he made it close, which was surprising for a Northern liberal. The Dems will be making a serious miscalculation if they run a liberal campaign in the general election. They can govern to the left once they win, but they will not win if they campaign to the left. It would also help if the candidate is from the south, which is why I see Edwards getting at least the second spot on the ticket. Don't be surprised if he takes the top spot. If the Dems want to win, Edwards is their candidate. Issues and substance aside. He's from the south. He's likable and he's good looking. That has been the recipe for Democratic victory in a national election. The country wants change, but the change that they want is more cosmetic than anything. They want to see some new faces in Washington. They don't want another Bush or Clinton. The history of the American electorate is that they rarely vote for sweeping change. The Vietnam War did result in sweeping change in 1968, and the Vietnam War, a stagnant economy and Watergate didn't produce a sweeping change in Washington in 1972. If they run to the left, they'll run themselves off the road.

[Paradisecity]

The thing is, you aren't going to win those southern states either way. McCain won't win NY and Fill in Democrat here won't win Texas.

Does anyone have a list of swing states and states where it was close? The two that instantly come to mind are Ohio and FL...

[One Red Seat]

In the last two general elections, those have been the big two. There are others who could swing either way, but they don't hold enough electoral votes to be of significant consequence. FL and OH will be the battle ground, again.

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by Paradisecity

The thing is, you aren't going to win those southern states either way. McCain won't win NY and Fill in Democrat here won't win Texas.

Does anyone have a list of swing states and states where it was close? The two that instantly come to mind are Ohio and FL...

You are addressing the recipe for losing, which is to kiss off the south and go for the swing states. It hasn't worked for the Democrats in decades. Look at the electoral map for Clinton in '92 and '96. He wins key southern states. That is a winning strategy. Kissing off the south and hoping to win Ohio is a losing hand, especially if the Democrat runs left of center.

[Paradisecity]

I agree with you and I disagree with you. I DO believe that there are some states where it is pretty close to a lost cause- Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma. I believe that its better to Focus on Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Arizona, NM, Tenn, WV, Nevada, Florida, etc.

I agree that John Edwards could win over the south better than a non-southerner for the democratic party, but I'm not sure he could hold some of the states outside the south. Guiliani would beat Edwards in a lot of the northeast, IMO.

[das11209]

Originally Posted by Paradisecity

I agree with you and I disagree with you. I DO believe that there are some states where it is pretty close to a lost cause- Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma. I believe that its better to Focus on Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Arizona, NM, Tenn, WV, Nevada, Florida, etc.

I agree that John Edwards could win over the south better than a non-southerner for the democratic party, but I'm not sure he could hold some of the states outside the south. Guiliani would beat Edwards in a lot of the northeast, IMO.

I am not sure that getting a southern candidate means the Dems will get Southern votes. People is South certainly has different issues than us - and they look at the republican party for some reason for their issues. If Gore could have carried Tennesse - then probably there would have been no GWB and no Iraq war. Edwards for that matter was the running partner of Kerrie - how did that work out in south? He could not even carry South Carolina.

The election time always reminds me how deeply divided we are. I think of the election map - blue in the coasts and the north east. Red in south and center. Apart from 2-3 swing states - that ain't gonna change irrespective of who is running for which party.

To me it will come down to swing states. Only good thing for the dems - there is no Rove to make the evengellicals rally or make anonymous phone calls to voters - at least till now.

Edit - It's just me but I still don't see Southerns lining up to vote for a woman or a black. In that way - Edwards may have an edge

[a700hitter]

Originally Posted by das11209

I am not sure that getting a southern candidate means the Dems will get Southern votes. People is South certainly has different issues than us - and they look at the republican party for some reason for their issues. If Gore could have carried Tennesse - then probably there would have been no GWB and no Iraq war. Edwards for that matter was the running partner of Kerrie - how did that work out in south? He could not even carry South Carolina.

Gore ran one of the worst campaigns in recent history. He should have won easily. As for Edwards having no effect, the bottom of the ticket rarely does. The fact is that in the last 30 years two democrats have won the presidency. Both were southerners and Clinton ran right down the middle.

Originally Posted by das11209

The election time always reminds me how deeply divided we are. I think of the election map - blue in the coasts and the north east. Red in south and center. Apart from 2-3 swing states - that ain't gonna change irrespective of who is running for which party.

Close elections do not mean that the nation is divided. The Republicans have been better at national campaign strategy in presidential elections. In only a handful of years has a Presidential candidate won more than 60% of the vote-- Nixon in 1972 and LBJ in 1964. Did that mean that we were less divided? I don't understand what people mean by saying that the country is divided. The solid south has been an electoral reality for a long long time.

[das11209]

Originally Posted by a700hitter

The fact is that in the last 30 years two democrats have won the presidency. Both were southerners and Clinton ran right down the middle.

Yes - but that was before the neocons and evengellicals started rulling the political arena.

Close elections do not mean that the nation is divided.

I will not argue with you because you have seen more elections than me in this country. To me close elections does not mean that it will have to turn into a north vs south affair. Why not have a close election while Dems win Texas and republicans carry Vermont? To me there is a deep divide in the country and the root of it is in the value systems of north and south.

[Mr Crunchy]

fuck the south,in all sincerity fuck them and their candidates.
since the nation deemed the south important the nation has headed full speed into the shitter without stopping.

start with lbj up to today and you have candidates who pretend to be conservative spending like the worlds going to end tomorrow...
i am so bleeding sick of the term""conservative"" being used by people who have no idea what that concept means.
since 1964 we've elected nothing but southerners and californians and in my opinion this nation has suffered for it.
record deficits,open borders,trade gaps with china that dwarf the GNP of russia.
what happened here?
we elected southeners,we elect movie stars,we elect the dim,we elect the hip but we dont elect talent...

the nations divided in a way not seen since 1865.

it started with nixon but it really took off under bill the zipper
the cross aisle battles have to stop,we need unilateral thinking we need a guy who isnt a dem or a republican but an american 1st....

mccain can build across both sides of the floor
i dont think hillary is capable and based on what we saw yesterday in nh i dont think mainstream america is capable of voting for a black guy with the middle name of hussien

every fucking poll had obama winning,most by double digits
however
when the door or curtain closed people chose differently

how can the gop poll be dead balls on accurate and the democratic poll be off by 15 points?
anyways
100,000 people in ohio gave corkey his 2nd term with the gay marraige amendment on the ohio ballot...brilliant work by rove by the way...

450 votes gave corkey the florida vote in 00...

i really dont believe the democrats need the south
they do need the midwest

anyone who plays the God and Flag agenda in 08 will get murdered
i see a mccain clinton final and i think she wins in another close 1.
nh had their shot to bury her last night
they failed

the nation is tired of the social bullshit the GOP has run on,gay marriage,abortion,school prayer etc...theyre tired of the hypocrites who run on ethics yet steal with both hands.
the nation also is coming to terms that democrats arent synonymous with surrender.

after 8 years of little corkey bush and the sissies who make up his cabinet it will be a miracle if anyone can overcome his failures from the GOP and keep the whitehouse.

this nation needs a unilateral approach with sincere input from both sides of the aisle.
mccain can reach across,im not sure obama has the experience and i dont think hillary plays well with others...
the other candidates are finished as far as im concerned

wheres rudy ?
planning his strategy while looking to the heavens for another miracle??
fucking dolt is running on his ability to fight terror??
theres 300 families of nyc fireman that would beg to differ with his ability to fight terror despite all those action shots with him and his megaphone...

we need someone to step up,grab both parties by the yang and tell it like it is.
so far ive only seen 1 guy capable