Democrats fool themselves with visions of Kerry victory

[fencesitter]

Gee, what a bubble popper, but it has some good points and shows we can't get lazy.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/sunday_review/9345279.htm

In 1972, the New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."

I don't live in such a rarefied world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November.

It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year. The President has Ralph Nader on his side, and demography. Since the 2000 election, shifts in population have added seven electoral votes to the red Bush states and subtracted seven from Goreland.

<snip>

The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality.

Kerry ought to know this, and he may. But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush. They will judge Kerry by how hard he goes after the Crawford Beelzebub.

more...

[Bowline]

1. Good post.

Just goes to prove that complacency very well could cost Kerry the election. Don't let your guard down for a minute.

[WI_DEM]

2. Good thing you posted this here

if you had put it in GD 2004 an astonishing number of people would say "your being unduly pessimestic". While things look good now, events can shape an election--and to a large extent a president can shape events in a way a challenger can't. Polls really are meaningless until after the GOP convention.

[wtmusic]

3. Great post

I've with the "98% Chance of Kerry Victory" stuff.

Dreamworld.

[klook]

4. We definitely can't take victory for granted.

It will take a LOT of work to beat Bush, and I don't think we're close yet. People get all excited by the polls showing Kerry ahead by 5 points (in the popular vote), but we are only going to win if Kerry is ahead in electoral votes on Nov. 2.

By the way, Nov. 2 is All Souls' Day. Let's keep working hard to win for all those souls who have departed this world thanks to Bush administration policies.

[phantom power]

12. Kerry is supposedly ahead by quite a lot *more* in electoral votes

Electoral vote predictions based on current poles show a large margin of victory by Kerry.

It's a long way to November, but current numbers are looking good for Kerry.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Paschall]

6. Straw man arguments

"The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality."

Kerry has never said the economy is in a Great Depression, that Iraq is Vietnam or that Islamic jihad is Bush's fault. On the other hand, a candidate who insists that an economy that generates 32,000 jobs in July is "turning the corner," that they "hate our freedoms," that WMDS will eventually, sometime, probably be found in Iraq, that America is safer as the terror alert dial skips up a step, etc., etc., is most assuredly detached from reality.

[stopbush]

7. Opinions are like assholes...

This article tries desperately to draw parallels where none exist. Pauline Kael of 1972 is hardly the down-and-dirty media observer of 2004. Give me a break!

This statement: "But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush" is so patently false as to be laughable. Indeed, while sites like DU may serve as echo chambers, the community of DU gives support to like-minded people who then go into the real world and talk to many different people of different political persuasions. It's much easier to battle/convince opposing opinions when you've got facts at hand, facts that were provided by websites like DU. *That* information tool certainly didn't exist in 1972.

And who, exactly, is getting complacent on the D side? Is aggressively going after red states complacent? I don't think so.

And as far as the EC goes, a Kerry victory in Ohio or Florida pretty much erases the R gains in votes.

Why write an article like this if you're voting for Kerry?

1) So you can say, "I told ya so" if bush somehow wins
2) So you can say, "man, I'm sure glad I was wrong" when Kerry wins.
3) You're actually voting for *

[Paschall]

9. I was going to reply to that, too

"But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush."

I've been doing overseas voter registration since January. No, not everybody despises Bush... in the last eight months I've registered three Republicans.

[calico1]

8. I agree that we should not be

complacent and overconfident. However, it is obvious from a lot of this editorial that the author is clearly supporting Bush. Just his comments on the economy not being that bad point to that.

[vi5]

10. I've been saying this sort of thing for a while....

Anyone who thinks places like DU and the like aren't merely an echo chamber are being naive.

I want a Kerry win like nothing else in this world. But the notion that bush* is reviled and that people have an overly horrible view of the shape the country is in is just very misguided.

Most of my friends and family are moderate independents (some even actual democrats) and while they are not nuts about bush*, they also don't loathe him and don't have a full sense of how bad a shape we are in economically, militarily, etc. And these are also the people that will fall in line with the "rally round our leader" mentality if something happense before November.

[wurzel]

11. Bush will win by fraud. Again!i And we will accept it. Again!!

n/t

[bemildred]

13. The comparison with 1972 is ludicrous,

as anyone who was there can tell you.

Mr. Kerry, FWIW, is running a much more effective campaign
than McGovern, too, and that is one reason I have decided I
like Kerry.

[David Dunham]

14. The author is a rightwing Likudnik. We WILL win if we work hard.

[struggle4progress]

15. When Chafets (who pushed for US invasion of Iran, Iraq, and Syria) ...

... complains that the Democratic Party is "imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority," it is difficult for me not to fall on the floor laughing.

We CAN win a fair election but we cannot guarantee victory. We should also be prepared for the real possibility that that election WON'T be fair. In short, we must be realistic and scientific in out pursuit of change. But neocon Chafets will never provide us with useful information or ideas: his intent is to demoralize us, to mislead the undecided, and to rally Bushistas.