If Democrats lose 3/3 races for Governor next week

or even 2/3 (I think Louisiana is doable)do you think that Democratic National Chairman Terry McAullife (not sure I'm spelling his last name correctly)should step aside?

Under his leadership the Democratic party suffered set backs in the House and Senate in 2002 without the national party making a strong message against Bush policies to generate a strong turnout among key groups within the party.

In 2003, we lost the governorship of California--while this can't be directly blamed on Terry it was another high profile defeat for the Democrats.

The latest polls don't look promising for Democrats in Kentucky and Mississippi and Louisiana is no better than a toss-up. Hopefully voters will prove the pollsters wrong. But if the Democratic losses continue after next weeks elections should the party finally (even if he is a favorite of Bill and Hillary) look for different leadership at the national level? and if so, who?

if the losses were, say greater than 7%, then yes, he should consider stepping down.

IMHO, he has been a disgrace to the dems, pushing repug lite values.

"The latest polls don't look promising for Democrats in Kentucky and Mississippi and Louisiana is no better than a toss-up. "

I've said this repeatedly...watch for it. Toss-ups are bad news, and just what the GOP wants. They can easily steal a toss-up election, because people will just say "Aw well, it was close anyway." That is why they keep pushing polls to show Chimpy is at a near even split overall, despite have miserable numbers on specifics. I promise you, it is part of the plan. Keep the "polls" showing it is too close to call, even if it isn't. Then, let Diebold do the rest of the work.

The GOP will take those three "toss-up" races, because it is not a toss-up at all. The fix is in.

Except for Jefferson County (solid Dem!), KY doesn't have Diebold machines AFAIK.

I don't think MS has any Diebold or electronic machinery either.

I think they'll both be honest counts. However, the less politically astute are easily swayed by TV ads and the GOP has sleeker and nastier ads than the democrats.

Some elections are stolen. That's been a given since after the civil war. However, we must not be paranoid.

We lose elections. We win elections.

The GOP is ahead in KY. Kuntuckians at the moment are NOT pro-Fletcher. They are anti-Patton. Thus, Chandler is getting the brunt of the anti-Patton backlash. Patton has a 7% approval rating. 'Nuff said.

Mississippi is Freeper country. Look at the Freepers. This state is Trent Lott's state and is INFESTED with Freepers. Musgrove sought to ditch the Confederate flag. ANYONE who is against the Confederate flag in Mississippi won't win statewide. The fact that Musgrove is behind by only 5% shows that Barbour isn't popular.

With a stronger candidate, Barbour would be toast.

Only one person could have prevented a Republican from becoming Governor. But Governor Davis chose to try to hang on, despite all indications that the people of California did not want him.

Gov. Gray Davis could have just resigned and abducated the office to his Lt. Gov. Bustamante thus staving off the republican power grab. It would have been the best move for the party as opposed to the individual.

Terry handed down a dictate early on in the recall process that no democrat was to run on the second part of the ballot and that all efforts were to be directed at defeating the recall.

This was bad strategy.

And Davis should have known his chances of defeating the recall were less than slim and none. He had the lowest approval rating of any politician in history. Worse than Nixon! Having an approval rating bouncing between 22% and 27% is clear signal to anyone in office that your chances of getting 50% +1 is an impossibility.

But I do think that resigning prior to the certification of the recall would have been a very bad thing to do. Worse than just throwing in the towel. But after the recall was certified even if he resigned the recall election would have proceeded. So that would have been a pretty useless resignation. But it would have given Cruz far more leverage in the campaign, and I do think had that scenario played out, Cruz would have easily retained the office. All of the energy would have been taken out of the recall efforts, Arnold most likely would have not run, and McClintock, Simon, and the rest of the bunch would have been trounced at the polls.

Davis only won because Simon was too reichwing for California. Had Riordan :puke: or Bill Jones :puke: won the primary, he'd have been trounced.

Davis should have resigned before qualification of the recall. Bustamante would have been a great governor. :cry:

He put the NATIONAL party's credibility, energy and resources on the line for a STATE election, which he then lost.

Ms. Blanco!!! Remember, the Democratic Candidates recieved 58% of the primary vote! The Dem's have no reason to loose this one!

The Dem's could still hold Kentucky but Missisippi looks very bad!

Jindal has a blip in the polls due to the hipness factor. A chunk of his poll respondents won't vote for him.

very difficult conditions, especially after 9/11. 9/11 screwed over the 2002 elections.

The CA Governorship--that was a freak accident in a lot of ways. But Davis's numbers were headed south and there was little he could do to stop it.

I think that McAulliffe should be given some more time. I think that his real test will be the 2004 elections.

Two months after 9/11 when Bush was at his peak Dems won governorships in New Jersey and Virginia. We could have done better in 2002 had we a more coherent message nationally especially in regards to the economy.

nt

In New Jersey, the GOP nominated a hardcore conservative in the left-of-center state. McGreevey basically won by default as half of the GOP refused to help Reaganite Bret Shundler.

In Virginia, Mark Earley, an inept candidate, lost to Mark Warner, a centrist democrat.

The outcomes of the NJ and VA races were known almost as soon as the primary results came in...

:toast:

September 11th saved Bush's ass.

His numbers were in the toilet and the GOP would have lost their shirt if not for that fateful day.

I even hazard to guess that Bush would've been impeached by now. :shrug:

He can still work on his Presidential campaign. Can you imagine what he'd do to the Republicans as DNC chair? We might actually get a fair election in 2004.

Maybe it would indicate that that SHIT-FOR-BRAINS McAulliffe isn't wasting his and the NATIONAL party's energy and resources on stupid bullshit state races anymore.

McAulliffe pissed me off mightily with his stupid crusade against Jeb Bush.

I like Bill Clinton, always have, but he did more to hurt us than anyone. What's the first Repug comeback, "Yeah, but look what Clinton did!". It's bullshit, but I think it's so.

I really don't understand the ongoing need to pick on Terry McAuliffe. At least not all these attacks for all the wrong reasons, which suggest that we're not going to see an improvement even if he does get the boot.

Yes, we are going to lose the elections in Kentucky, probably lose Ronnie Musgrove as governor of Mississippi, and we may or may not win a close one in Louisiana where both final contestants are apparently engaged in a Lesser Evil misery showdown.

In the South especially Democratic candidates have to be a class (or even two) better than the Republican to win. And to hold on to an office they have to show substantive progress, which isn't demanded of Republicans. I don't like it, I wish I could find reason not to believe this, but I think this double standard is really there. We live in polarized times and the elder half of the population just behaves in a way that makes it so. So I never saw reason for high hopes in Kentucky, Musgrove (in Mississippi) got into office with 49.5% and wasn't able to rise above parochial stuff, and I expected Blanco to make a much better argument for herself.

There are things McAuliffe can be blamed for. The Tread Lightly/Have The Pollsters Finesse It Out strategem of 2002 was basically his mistake, as far as I can tell. It had no imaginative element and it contained the assumption- proven false- that the Democratic electorate had become more conservative. There was also nothing in it for new Latino voters and not much to catch the attention of black voters. (But the truth is that Gephardt, Daschle, Gore, etc didn't really see how to back up any broad campaign strategy involving tough talk at the time- Daschle didn't want to get Zell wandering off the reservation, Gephardt can talk the talk but has never walked the walk, Gore couldn't figurehead anything without giving the critics more ammunition than bullet holes, everybody in the establishments (media, business, military, religious conservatives) was enamoured of the IraqAttack.)

On the other hand, McAuliffe has been pretty good at keeping the national party afloat organizationally and financially. It hasn't gotten to the point of getting the more troubled state parties back in shape, though. And although he is not the one to solve the fundamental problem of the Party- socioeconomic class alliances broken down by the racial minority/majority cultural schism in the society as a whole- he has done everything else about as well as can be expected under the circumstances.

So: I don't see the point. And even if he sucks as badly as asserted, what matters is that the Party is on the verge of regaining an electoral majority (not merely plurality) nationally against the plethora of Republican structural advantages. He seems to me good enough, despite shortcomings, to help us realize that if we nominate one of the two or three good candidates next year.

I'm not saying we "should" win all three and anything less is failure.

I'm saying he is already a failure and anything but a surprising victory (that he can legitimatly take credit for) is not enough to save his job.

We can't aford to change horses next August. We need to do it now unless there is some indication that he can help us win. Otherwise, 2004 is going to be a hell of a lot worse than three Gvoernor's races.

and he says the Repuke is going to win, but it is because of the current governor's problems. I don't think McAuliffe can be blamed for everything. Having said that, I can't stand him.

Terry McAulliffe should have resigned in 11/02, IMHO.

He should be replaced ASAP.

I think we'll lose KY in a landslide and Mississippi by a small (52-48) margin.

The LA gov. race isn't until the 15th but I think Blanco will eek out a win.

If he resigns, it shows Repubs that we're lost and confused, it brings press attention to our woes, and manages to kick our asses. He's been decent, not good, but when you have a fundamentally flawed candidate (Davis), a person of the same party as a 7% governor (Chandler), a dem in freeper-land (Musgrove), it will be tough.

We're gonna win in Philly, and seeing something confidential, we're gonna win many major mayors races. Also, I think Louisiana is gonna go the way it did last year, have the GOP-er up by a few until the very end.