2004 Election - I'm VERY Optimistic

I believe Democrats will make significant gains in the 2004 election simply because those out of work and, those forced to take a lower-paying job will not vote for the incumbent. Bush will be the first president since Herbert Hoover who had more people employed when he took office than when re ran for re-election. Am I wrong?

but many on DU will get pessimistic on the day of the election like they did in the California Recall.

Did you forget about that?

but it is unhealhy to be pessimistic.

And we know how that turned out, eh? Feelings about the California recall weren't pessimism...that was bitter experience.

We won that election

Gore may have gotten more votes, nation-wide as well as in Florida-
But he didn't "win" anything.
or hadn't you noticed?

Oops, or maybe not. I just went back and re-read.

Personally, I was floored at the results of the "midterms" in '02. It really fueled my pessimism.

less confident feelings. After the last three major elections, most notably California, fooling ourselves that we don't need to fight with everything we've got to get shrub out of office would be yet another mistake. Not suggesting your not fighting, I just find optimism doesn't keep me motivated.

is the self-defeatism I see at this site. Many people are ready to concede the election already, voting will be gone, police state, everybody's fleeing the country, etc. etc.

I'm not saying these things couldn't happen. But it doesn't help the cause any by becoming and remaining so fatally pessimistic. It encourages the opposition, discourages everyone else, and surely doesn't persuade anyone sitting on the fence to come to our side.

We really need some intestinal fortitude to acheive success. We need optimism, not at the expense of reality, we don't need Pollyannas, but let's have an election, let's get people to vote, let's convincingly argue our points of view.

Like that new commercial for some shoe or another says, "WE MUST PROTECT THIS HOUSE! WILL YOU PROTECT THIS HOUSE?!"

We can win the election by pursuading new people why are ideas are the best and how Bush has failed this country and getting them to register and vote. Being pessimistic will not help our chances.

are half-ripe for us. Now, we have to set in place a plan for Democrats.

I'm totally and completely pessimistic.

I think it's going to be a loss again. I hope I'm proven wrong, but I am not hopefull.

And I think that there is going to be equal blame to go around. The repub spin machine, the rnc controlled media, the more spineless centrist dems, and the non-pragmatic far left contingent of the democratic party are all going to have to share blame for this one.

what do we do about that?

And campaign. And try to educate people. But that's going to be very hard to do if there is not a 100% unified front on the left. Which there is not going to be. The centrists and the far left are going to provide the RNC with enough quotes and ammunition so that no matter whether our nominee is a "centrist" like Kerry or Gephardt or a "liberal" like Dean or Kucinich(note the quotes which indicate that I personally think both labels are incorrect)there will be enough quotes and inter-dem animosity for them to be able to convince people that if we can't come up with a clear vision for our party, then how are we going to do it for the country.

So...

What are we going to do about THAT?

I don't know how to convince the lefties demanding ideological liberal purity than the majority of the mushy middle of swing voting independents don't really agree with their agenda or at the very least their approach to that agenda.

And I don't know how to convince the unwavering centrists that if they don't at least make some overtures to the more left leaning amongst us that there will be no motivation for people to turn out to vote.

If someone can come up with answers to this I will love them dearly.

Recognizing the problems, even if we don't know how to deal with them yet, is crucial. If we put our energy into working on solutions to those problems, it's a far more productive expenditure of our energy than throwing in the towel.

Hopefully Gore will get his new cable network up and running and it's successful.

We need to be more aggressive about writing and calling members of the media to encourage them to do more positive stories about Dems, to point out the truth about the Pubs. We cannot put up with our candidates being "Goreized."

Chimp STILL has at least 1/2 of the electorate liking him after all he has done to ruin this country's economy, foreign relations, its future, its civil values etc. etc. etc. Just what does it take for people to stop "liking" him? If he gets this much approval NOW - all that has to happen is a smidge better economic news on the jobs front or some more "moderate" sounding speeches to fool enough more sheeple to win even though any of our potential candidates (except Lieberman) would be so much better in any of the above mentioned areas>

Is "likeabilty" the ONLY thing voters care about?????

If so - we had better push Edwards - IMO he has the most pleasant persona of them all.

but when I went to the state fair last week, there were alot of people wearing Bush/Cheney stickers on their shirts and blouses.

so the support for the opposition is more visible and vocal. How do we change that?

but we don't have a mass propaganda machine out there. Our messages don't seem to be getting through.

As best we can. I know a lot of people who are otherwise pretty apolitical who very much oppose Bush. Don't believe the hype.

The trick is to GET them to VOTE.

of sheeple - those who support Bush, not because they are in the elite 1% and big corps, but because they think he is a "good Christian" and they really don't have a clue that his policies are damaging to their own interests (killing the kids of mostly middle and working poor in Iraq, cutting programs beneficial to them, losing jobs, making the health care coverage problems worse, etc. etc. etc.)?

I bet you were one of very few progressively minded people there - what were you doing there anyway? (no offense intended - I like the fair, too)

You're not paying attention to how the process works. You're imagining that you live in a democracy where the voters really decide how the country will be run, based on objective views of the issues. In reality, most people are detached from the political process altogether. Those that bother to vote are generally either doing OK financially; or those who are reliably obedient to the voice of the television.

When next November rolls around, if TV tells voters that we're under attack from terrorists, and only President Bush can keep us safe, a certain proportion of voters will believe it. If the TV implies that the Democrat is "soft on terrorism" or a "tax and spend liberal" or (*** fill in the blank ***), many voters will accept it. Americans do what TV tells them to do. And if they don't -- well, there is that little matter with the electronic voting machines.

In the Calif Recall, nothing could have been more harmful to the voters' own interests than electing Arnold - but people did so anyway, in overwhelming numbers. Everyone knew Arnold was an even more "pro-business" candidate than Davis, & that he was backed by Bush. They voted for him anyway. TV told people to vote for him, and they obeyed.

what do we do to change that?

Think about how stupid and uninformed the average american is-

Now, realize that since that's "average", at least half the people are more stupid and uninformed than that.

attitudes will be changed by education and attrition...I'd give it about 150 years or so- be patient.

than anybody else. If they are uninformed, how do we change that?

If you don't believe in the possibility of change, why do you come here? Why waste your time?

Are we positively informing people who might visit this site by announcing that there's no hope, that we concede? What message are we sending?

By disabling that system of information dissemination?

our representatives who will be running for reelection. Does he not realize this? He's saying that they are culpable to the malaise that is occurring in DC. Can you see the ads by the GOP, using Dean's statements to prove how useless our representative are?

What Dean is doing is selfish and despicable. It's always just about him. He points to Clark as a shiny new Democrat with no loyalty to the party. But you won't hear Clark suggesting that our representatives need to be replaced. I think that Clark is a far more loyal Democrat than Dean.

You summed up how I feel about Dean. I couldn't stand listening to him the other day when he was taking digs at members of congress. Sure there are bad ones (like Zell Miller) but I've watched C-Span since 2000 (including a lot of the late night committe meetings) and I've seen the Democrats work their heart out to stand up to the Repubs trying to get good legislation passed or keep bad legislation from being enacted.

Then I listen to people crucify members of congress for making a pragmatic vote (the bill will pass without their vote so they decide to vote yes because they come from a conservative leaning state). Would these fools rather the Democrat vote yes and then get thrown out of office in the next election and replaced with a republican? Why can't we get a patients bill of rights etc. - because we don't have enough Democrats in Congress. If the thinking like this prevails we'll have even less.

who posed alongside Sen. Lieberman and Dubya in the Rose Garden on Oct. 10, 2002?

That was a day of infamy for this Democrat.

As far as Clark, my co-worker from New Hampshire, who is a registered Independent but leans Democratic, told me today that Clark is a Republican running as a Democrat. He's voting for Dean because none of the other Dems have a chance against Bush, and Clark is a Republican so he won't support him either.

I switched my registration for Democrat to Green. I'm switching back to Democrat so I can vote in the primaries. That was the day I wrote my Democratic representative and told him if Democrats were going to be Republicans, they might as well just call themselves Republicans.

Gen. Clark, let us hear all that praise about the pres.

Dean is a true lib. Why did we even think of going to the repubs and the military for someone and he goes to the top of the polls. What is wrong with us.

Let us run dean a true lib against bush a consv and see what happens.

But, maybe it is my inherent New England pessimism having grown up around Red Sox fans, but with all the bad going on with the economy, Iraq, US foreign relations, the loss of civil liberties, etc, Bush's approval ratings are still around 50%. It's much worse than when Bush Sr was president, but Bush Jr's approval ratings are higher. The mainstream media has moved quite a bit right of center over the past 10 years since that time.

And, while I have no idea where he stands politically, Bill Schneider was right a few weeks back when he was talking about the Democrats in a just finished debate - there were a few questions that Bill Clinton would have taken and "knocked out of the park" - and, none of the candidates on stage came even close to connecting like that. What happens when Karl Rove and his media lapdogs really start going after the top Democratic candidates in 6 months or so? They've basically been ignoring the Dems so far (other than a few negative barbs at Clark and Dean...) Will the eventual nominee be able to counter all the bombs that the Republicans will be dropping? Gore's campaign often looked clumsy and slow to respond 3 years ago.

Imagine if you were Republican voter or even a strategist right now, and Bush was your only choice?? THEY are the ones who should be feeling depressed now. 'God, do we HAVE to go with HIM again?'

(Were it not for having the media in their pockets, and the megamillionaires behind them, he wouldn't have a prayer. Well, okay, he'd still probably have all those prayers, but you know what I mean.)

that's one of the ways they can overcome the disasters they are creating.


And of course electronic voting : with that it doesn't matter what the majority thinks or votes...

Don't want to be negative, but realistic.

I am sure of it. We have a purpose like never before - to get rid of the moron running this country into the ground.

The public doesn't seem to care about Iraq; the economy is bad but probably won't be as terrible the closer we get to the elections; and his poll #'s while bad are nothing worse than a lot of other presidents who got re-elected around this time.

At times I am very optimistic and can't believe that anyone would vote for Bush. However, I remind myself that I spend my whole life around like minded people. While on the one hand, I despise polls and the whole process of doing them and spinning the results, I also look to them to check my own biases. I know that a lot of people on here have good reasons to be critical of polls. However, I still don't completely ignore polls and, although the numbers are improving for the dems and moving in the right direction, they are still not good enough to make comfortable.

who keeps telling me to not be so anxious about this.

"These are the types of people (Bu$hGang) who will hang themselves if given enough rope." This is what this person keeps telling me over and over.

Ok, fine, but I just hope they hang themselves by 2004, not 2008.

Midwest_Doc said:

"I believe Democrats will make significant gains in the 2004 election simply because those out of work and, those forced to take a lower-paying job will not vote for the incumbent."

Yes, that's what I'm hoping for. I believe the unemployment/underemployment nos. are incorrect (way too low), and almost all of these people will vote against George W. Hoover. Unemployed people know just how bad this economy is.

I've been a paid member of DU for nearly 3 years and have gotten more frustrated with what I see here and the infighting that only serves to show us as "weak" or "indecissive" while the other side is lock step in their ignorance and arrogance.

My big thing is not just retaking the Executive (that was taken from us), but to retake both houses and ensure that another Repugnican coop can be pre-empted. Right now we have few levers to pull and the 2004 election can determine if this trend continues or if there's a cyclical change that will turn this Conservative tide on its head.

What really has pissed me recently is attempting to contact my local Democrat party to put together a solid campaign for local elections and not only aren't my calls and email not returned, but there's a resignation that this is the "status quo". Sheesh, I've got a Congressman who is a alcoholic and has done zero for this district for over 30 years...if there was a district ripe for the taking it's this one and the local Democratic party sits on its hands or puts up a name on the ballot...not much else. No vision, no opportunity. This is where we've really lost the ball, folks and until we recapture both houses, all the popular votes mean nothing.

Yes, there are a ton of reason why someone should toss this illegal and corrupt regime on it's ass, but the Democratic Party looks very disjointed and unfocused at a time of tremendous opportunity. I truly hope that next November I feel wrong as to how I feel now.

Yes, I have suggestions...my specialty is the media...but why bother when everyone talks and no one listens.

So long, DU

Some DUers are just too smart for their own good.
so smart in fact, that the Dumb Repugs win everytime!

Many are kept busy here analyzing and criticizing and feeling the heavy responsibility of intelligence, superior articulation and insightful wit!

I, for one, keep hearing the Rove Chant sung by many so-called intellectuals and smart DUers about Wes Clark being a Republican; which most know is a great big lie!

HOW DO WE KNOW IT'S A LIE? Because the real truth is very simple and based on good old fashion common sense backed up by the facts.

The possibility that a life long military personnel honestly told the truth about his previous votes when not even required (the votes for Nixon and Reagan conveniently believed by all DUers), and his explained claim that he was never a partisan (that admission selectively NOT believed by many DUers) and the fact that he never registered as a Republican (selectively unbelievable to some DUers although verified as true via official documentation) MAKES A LOT OF FUGGING SENSE!

But what could I be thinking?......what is common sense to the ultra intelligent?

The bothersome fact that he volunteered the information that is now being used against him, needs no analytical reality check!....cause intelligence needs no facts! Intelligence is bigger than facts, and certainly bigger than some lowly common sense.

Facts and common sense are the tools of the common folks, rendered meaningless when they work against the Oh-so-smart-and-insightful ones' decided beliefs. DUers who won't admit that their biggest Gripe against Wes clark is that he dared mess up their wonderful summer, when so many had invested time and effort debating in support of their chosen candidates in an eloquent manner. The battles had been fought and concensus of each side settled by the Hi IQs.

...... Then in comes Wes Clark, a brilliant Military General, daring to call himself liberal, and messing up the brilliant work done all summer by so many on this board.

This abrupt event required that facts and common sense efficiently become useless burdens to be ignored.

I have faith that these DUers, highly superior to all others, will prevail, even if it kills them. The cost will be high, but the brainiac satisfaction will be well worth it. Then, after we get totally whoopped in the 2004 election, they will eloquently post on the board of how dreadful everything is! All will be rationalized, facts will once again be used to and the battle will continue!

But be assured, the complaints and the arguments will be conducted in a real smart and witty way. Because by then, many will have come back to their FRIGGING senses!