A Democratic Year?

[Zynx]

I don't know about the rest of you, but given how Bush is falling dramatically in the polls and trust is erroding for him and the Republican party as a whole, I see a Democratic year in the works. I mean not only getting the White House, but take overs of the House and the Senate as well. Even die-hard Republicans are abandoning Bush and will either stay home or vote Democratic as a protest. I see both anecdotal and statistical evidence to suggest that this could happen.

What do you think?

[CalebHayes]

1. God, I hope so.

[lcordero]

2. Nope

That's a job that BBV was meant for. BBV was meant to prevent any "surprises" and to keep the new status quo in place. The House, at the very least, is going to stay solidly Republican so that any sort of center-left to Progressive legislation can be taken off of the table.

[bryant69]

6. Well

I don't think we are going to have a 100% turnaround this year--let's face it we've 20 years or so of conservative ascendence (Clinton was for the most part a good president, but he was a conservative). On the other hand this could be the beginning of a shift, even if the house doesn't go Democratic.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[lcordero]

11. No

What's going to happen is that nothing will happen. "Nothing happening" will be blamed on the new President, if there is a new President.

[bryant69]

18. Captain Optimistic

So if nothign will happen, I guess I may as well stay home election day. I may as well stop posting here on Democratic Underground. I may as well stop trying to convince my friends to vote Democratic and to support progressive causes. Yep. You've opened my eyes; I'll just sit back and accept Republican Dominence.

I wonder how Mr. Rove would feel about that.

Bryant

[wuushew]

3. Perhaps Bush is bottoming out too soon

is there an analogue that correlates to "peaking too soon" ala Dean?

A Bush 1948 scenario would really piss me off, or even more a 269-269 tie followed by corantion by the House of Represenatives.

[Zynx]

4. 1948 is not plausible.

Truman was able to run against Congress there. Bush can't here.

[wuushew]

5. I am referring to the Dewey wins in landslide picture

you know what I am talking about. In fact I imagine Republicans felt much the same watching election returns in 48 as we did in 2000(minus the massive vote fraud however).

[diplomats]

9. I'm not so sure Bush has bottomed out

Every president in recent history has had some period in his first term where his ratings were the low 40s - even Reagan. Bush isn't that low yet.

[Postman]

7. Too soon to tell.

From your mouth to God's ears but its too early.

Events could change things 180 degrees tomorrow.

P.S. Bush sucks

[Kolesar]

8. Make it happen! Help the Dems take back the House in 2004

I know a local Ohio Democrat who is trying to unseat an incumbent republican. He can win, but he does need support. Even small amounts of cash will help tremendously at this time in his campaign.
www.jeffseemannforcongress.com

[lcordero]

15. Done

Regula needs to be kicked out for helping take away overtime pay

[Baclava]

10. Wait...

When the $200,000,000 kicks in you will see if America believes...

[diplomats]

13. Bush has already spent some of that (at least $33 million)

and he raised more like $170 million.

[Zynx]

17. I think a lot of that will backfire.

[Deja Q]

12. I hope so, but a lot of us felt that 2002 would be a Dem year as well.

My wine stays in the fridge until we do win.

(screw champagne, even the name is so arrogant and pompous it parallels the greedy scumbags who drink it like water.)

Corrected: spelling error

[terrya]

14. This time, the Dems seem to be acting like Dems.

I sure couldn't see that in 2002. And that's why they lost.

IMO.

Terry

[Zynx]

16. I never felt 2002 would be a Democratic year. Bush didn't look as

weak and we were not running any national campaign. If we screw up and do the same this year, then we are finnished.