Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Democrats usually win elections after Repubs screw up real bad...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:09 PM
Original message
Democrats usually win elections after Repubs screw up real bad...
Otherwise, this country will continue to vote for Republicans and Big Business under normal circumstances. This is just my opinion, but it seems that for the last hundred years, with a couple of exceptions, Republicans win the presidential elections. John Kennedy in 1960 and arguably Harry Truman in 1948 won against the odds. But Nixon was not popular with a lot of Republicans and Truman was a "war" president.

But Roosevelt had taken over from Hoover in 1932 after the Americans were standing in soup lines and selling apples on the corners. The Depression was a hard lesson to learn. But Eisenhower got his Party back on track after Truman. Then Kennedy won after 8 years of the very boring Eisenhower Administration and Johnson succeeded him after the assassination and won on his own in 1964 because Goldwater had irreparably split his Party.

But Nixon got his groove back in 1968 but he did not end the war and he went over the edge with his criminal activities. He resigned and Gerald Ford took over the remainder of his term. Then Jimmy Carter won in 1976 when people were looking for a little more honesty in their presidents. But his reign was short-lived. Ronald Reagan defeated him in 1980, mostly by portraying him as weak on defense, because of the failed Iran hostage matter. Reagan won again in 1984 with his theatrics and shiny city on the hill bullshit.

Then George H. W. Bush won in 1998, mostly by personally attacking his opponent, but differently from how Reagan attacked Carter. Bush had his Willie Horton ads and he portrayed Dukakis as weak on crime. When Dukakis put on his helmet and stuck his head out of a tank like Snoopy, the ridicule was unbearable and the Republicans offered no mercy and the media assisted in every way they could.

But, Bush Sr put a scare in people with the huge deficits. With the mule-eared Perot preaching about the evils of "deficits", the people put Bill Clinton into office in 1992 and Clinton was able to get re-elected in 1996 after the one-armed bandit, Bob Dole, tumbled head first from a speaker's balcony.
But, Clinton paid handsomely for his victory. The Repubs made his life miserable for the next four years. No one ever made the connection, but that was probably what led to Clinton's heart problems, just as much as his cheeseburgers.

Then, the people put George Bush Jr into power in 2000 or he stole the election, if you prefer it in black and white. But, with expert handlers and propaganda and the ability to scare the living shit out of the American people, he was able to win re-election in 2004. But, we are now in one of those times where the Republicans have made such a mess but that the people will have no choice but to hire a Demcorat, at least for four years, to clean up the mess created by one of the most criminal and incompetent Administrations of the last century. And history repeats itself once again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Personally, I think Bush stole the 2004 elections as well
the only thing keeping the repukes from trying to steal the elections in 2006, I think, is that there are too many vital races in too many states, and it would be too easy to have the vote fraud come out faster and with more surity than it has in the past.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I wouldn't count on that. read the bradblog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
3. And Repugs usually win elections after Dems screw up real bad. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Johnson comes to mind in '68...
with the Vietnam War debacle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. But Johnson wasn't running in 68
He bowed out . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. True, but that is why he dropped out...
Vietnam was hanging around his neck...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. I think, also, technically he couldn't run again
since he had served out the rest of JFK's term . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I think he was eligible to run again...
But he chose not to....Eugene was all over his ass...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Term limits . . . passed well before . . .
he might have tested the constitutionality of them . . . but I think that it was already in the Constitution that he would not be able to serve again . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. He only finished one year of Kennedy's term...
Surely he would have been permitted to serve more than 5 years if he had wished. Perhaps a historian can help us out here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. ulp, you're right
Wikipedia, 22nd Amendment:

"Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

My apologies . . . of course, come 1/22/2007, Cheney might just step down in favor of Condascending Lies, er, Condaleeza Rice so that she then could qualify for 08 AND 12 . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Nothing has changed
Except the Repug crooks running the country. Every election that I can remember that put a Repug in office has turned out bad for the honest and hard working. Although worse this time around, anytime they wiggle into office the jobs dry up, a deficit appears and their predecessor(a Democrat) is always to blame. I figure it will be quite a few years before another Repug manages to sneak by the voters. With election fraud that no longer bothers them as they can adjust the votes to suit their taste.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Republicans have gotten plenty of breaks
IMO, RFK would have defeated Nixon in '68. The hostage crisis crippled Carter's presidency and paved the way for Reagan and one term of Bush 41. Then 2000 was obviously the biggest theft/forfeit fluke of all time. Plus, if JFK hadn't been assassinated, and remained popular for 8 years, he possibly could have handed off to RFK...

9/11 was a huge break for the GOP as well. Can you imagine Bush trying to defend his term in office and pitch re-election without national security fear as a safety blanket?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sadie5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Thats exactly what they are doing
I honestly believe that they took a page out of Hitler's book and manipulated the people to believe in lies and terror just as the Nazi's did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. The hostage crisis crippled Carter's Presidency but..
The Iran-Contra scandal did not cripple the Reagan presidency? Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillZBubb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Not hard to figure...
The corporate media handled the news. All you heard about Carter was "America Held Hostage:...Day 104, Day 105, Day 106...". It was twisted.

Iran/Contra was "caused by subordinates, poor St. Ronnie didn't know what was going on." The media helped muddy the waters as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lib Grrrrl Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
11. Yeah...And We Haven't Had To Deal With DIEBOLD In the Past, Either!!!
do you really think these Repukes are going to ALLOW a Democrat victory in 2006 or 2008? gotta be kidding me! We're already living in a fucking dictatorship...our democracy is dead, you witnessed a bloodless coup.

In fact, the only way GWB will ever give up power is to another minion of his own family. We are witnessing the installation of a monarchy, the BFEE, an aristocracy, and there isn't jackshit we can do about it, with Diebold running things. We're basically fucked.

99 percent can hate Bush and he'll still win, because the media, the corporations, Diebold...and everyone with the most to lose will make sure that they don't lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. Clinton was ABLE to win because IranContra, BCCI, and Iraqgate headlines
Edited on Sun Jun-11-06 09:00 PM by blm
made Bush look untrustworthy to the American people and they were realizing what liars and crooks had been running things for so long.

And then Clinton closed all the books on IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate which allowed the BFEE to grow stronger and meaner and brought us 9-11 and Iraq war - smart move Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-11-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. But won't the Democrats close the books again if they win...?
They will forget about all the crimes. All the times Bush and Cheney have screwed this nation. They will be in power and they will have more important things to do than to seek revenge or dwell on the past. They will have to go about the business of governing. It will be a time that we will need to come together as Americans - no more division. We will need to put all these bad times behind us and look to the future... Don't you know that is what is going to happen??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-12-06 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Not if we put in an anti-corruption Dem who has always believed in open
government.

Robert Parry says it perfectly:

Hey Democrats, Truth Matters
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC