"It's going to be difficult for a Democrat (presidential candidate) to win in 2008."

[calteacherguy]

I heard someone say this the other day. We all know what the polls say now, but we all know that polls change, and things can happen in October.

Agree or disagree?

[The Magistrate]

1. It Will Not Even Be Close, Sir: the Democrat Will Win

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I wish I had your optimism.

If I had to place money at even odds, I'd place it on the Democrats, but I'm far from certain.

It appears more likely than not that the Democratic nominee will be Hillary Clinton, and don't polls indicate that if she were to run tomorrow against McCain or Giuliani that she'd lose?

Obviously, there's a long way still to go, and I expect the Democrats to gather momentum, but I'd be more surprised if it wasn't close than if it was.

[papau]

30. The polls indicate that on a state by state basis Hillary would beat any of the GOP - & the

latest overall national polls show all three of the Dem frontrunners would beat all three of the GOP frontrunners.

In the overall national polls there are different spreads between Dem and GOP depending on matchup - but the diference is caused by the movement between undecided and vote for the GOP - the Dem percentage of the electorate is pretty much the same for all 3 Dems (but Obama and Edwards frequently lead Hillary in the percentage Dem vote by 1 to 2 percent, and Hillary never gets the best showing - but again they are within 1 to 2 percent -like getting 50% for Hill and 52% for Obama - while the GOP numbers are all lower and wander up and down). Rudy no longer wins - so the GOP plans to toss a new name out there - Fred Thompson

[calteacherguy]

32. Yes, but polls are, well...polls. nt

[papau]

52. I agree - and it is way too early - but polls/horse/race is discussed more than policy on DU n/ti

n/t

[jcrew2001]

77. Which states will vote Dem?

It will come down to Ohio and Florida. If Rudy is the nominee, he will be competitive in PA and NJ. In 2000 it was florida, in 2004 it was ohio - so in 2008, will it be a new state or one of the 2. PA perhaps?

[jcrew2001]

60. I agree that Ohio will likely go blue, but the Dems always seem to find a way

to lose or to lose big. It will be close and it will NOT be a Dem landslide.

If we start a war with Iran or if Jeb Bush is on the ticket, I think the GOP will always stand a chance.

[calteacherguy]

26. I think that's a risky view to take when selecting our nominee. nt

[The Magistrate]

50. The Underpinnings Are Very Solid, Sir

No Republican is going to take Ohio next year. The sort of catastrophic collapse in scandal the state Republicans have suffered there will always doom a national ticket in that state, and their edge there in any case was solely a product of Blackwell's control of the state's electoral machinery, which is now in our hands. There is no reason to suppose we will not hold in a national campaign those states we took in '04, where loss of Ohio was the margin. Registration, and every other index of energy, is flowing against the Republicans, and in our favor. These things are not going to change. The people wish to repudiate the last several years, and with the crude implements our system provides, have no other means to do this but voting for the Democrats. That is what they will do. Precisely who runs, on either side, hardly matters....

[BootinUp]

82. You have to still consider

that the eventual R candidate will distance himself from Bush, and may still be able to rekindle some support. I think its still going to take an exceptional Dem candidate to win.

[Solo_in_MD]

61. Disagree, its never a skate, and you can lose it from any seam

We need to be careful who we nominate on a local and national level and keep the exremists from handing the elections to the repukes.

[liberal N proud]

2. A Democratic candidate will win 08 just as they did in 04 and 00

Will they get to move into the White House, that is another question.

[windy252]

15. Exactly. n/t

[rep the dems]

3. Disagree. If Clinton and Obama had voted yes the other day it might

be a little more difficult, but as it stands the voters are sick of the Bushes, sick of Republicans, sick of the lies. I like our chances.

[Captain Angry]

4. The key issue currently is Iraq.

By then, it could be Iran, the economy, etc.

But right now, many people are only against Iraq because we're not winning heroic battles on TV every day. If we were losing the same number of people, the same amount of corruption, the same amount of torture, but we were waving a flag over there over the body of a "terrorist", the polls would look a lot different.

The vast majority of the American populace is distracted and selfish. (To be polite)

[frogcycle]

5. I was appalled when Reagan won

and have been appalled ever since that these multinationalist self-styled arisotocrats continue to succeed in finding ways to pervert elections, through brainwashing, fraud, and who knows what else. I think that if we actually had the will of the people deciding, it would be a cakewalk. But I think it WILL be hard for a dem to win, only because they are up against myriad other obstacles.

[AlGore-08.com]

6. Just F.Y.I. Zogby has blogged that his polling shows either party could take '08

Still lots of time to turn that around, but it's a big mistake to assume that '08 is a lock, IMNSHO.

[wildhorses]

7. you are correct. there is ron paul and who knows who else

could come out to be a dark horse. it is WAY too early to be calling this race.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Yeah, that certainly keeps folks paying attention to the Zogby horserace polls, doesn't it?

He's not going to tell the truth on either side's chances.

[papau]

31. link? just curious as to exact wording. I agree it is too early to claim victory - I'll wait till

the day after the day after the election.

[calteacherguy]

47. Who is assuming 08' is a lock? I think that would be crazy! nt

[AndyA]

9. As long as the Democrats don't keep doing stupid things like giving

Bush everything he wants unchecked, we will win.

If they keep doing stupid stuff, who knows. :shrug:

I do think someone needs to slap a few of them back into reality.

[pnwmom]

11. It WILL be difficult, because the Repubs have everything in place to cheat

this time, as they did in 2000 and 2004 -- and almost succeeded in 2006.

We can't let our guard down. This will be an uphill battle.

[pnwmom]

12. self-delete (dupe)

[madfloridian]

13. There appears to be a push on about fear and national security.

I think the rest of that statement was about Democrats not being strong enough on national security. It was said I believe by a Democrat pushing for stronger national security above all.

I fear our Democrats are going to let Bush keep pushing the "fear" button, and that will open the door for more wars...and fear.

[Clark2008]

76. This is probably true.

And, yet, none of our front-runners has much foreign policy/national security experience. Why is that?

[liberal renegade]

79. about the same amount as "shitforbrains" had, right....

[Telly Savalas]

84. In addition to national security, they'll push the "Democrats don't have a plan" point.

They'll extend this talking point from November 2006 by adding stuff about how Democrats make promises, but when put in power they don't do anything. They'll use the current Congress as an example, and it will be even more effective than their other talking points, because it happens to be based on reality.

[givemebackmycountry]

14. I don't think it's going to be difficult, I think it's going to be impossible -

WHY?

Because there ain't going to be any 2008 Presidential Election.
During the late summer of '08, Bush is going to play the "continuity of government" card and suspend the elections.

You've read the posts this week that talked abut him appointing himself "dictator" - suspending the constitution and the elections, and announcing himself in charge of all branch's of government and all federal agencies.

Why would he sneak this little gem out with no MSN coverage and no commentary on it?
He has this hole card in his pocket and I think he's going to throw it out on the table when he's ready to use it.

I don't know why I feel this way, but I think it's almost a certainty.
There is too much money at stake, and no one is going to stop him.

We have some dark, dark days ahead of us.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

[murray hill farm]

18. In my opinion

there is no doubt that you are correct. This continuity of govt card would never been played if there was even the smallest doubt of it.

[Poiuyt]

16. I think we'll win but it will be close. The Republicans are just better atelections

than we are. They look at politics as all out war.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. It will be close because the electorate is balanced

Right now we benefit short term due to GOP implosion, tilting the independents in our direction. Also the young voters are registering and voting our way.

But that's about it. Otherwise the basics of '00 and '04 are still in place and a presidential election is going to come down to a handful of states. If we don't win Ohio, Florida or Virginia we have very little chance.

I wish more people would grasp that and identify the candidate(s) best suited to do well in those states. I think it's Edwards, then Obama. You throw away the primary polls. Once the nominees are set it is either/or, the battle for independent and swing voters. You assign Democratic voters to one side and GOP to the other, then handicap who would have the most pull among the uncommitted block.

If we insist on ignoring and forfeiting the likability aspect we'll continue to wind up in tossup races.

[papau]

49. perhaps you have new state polls - the ones I am aware of do not show the

anyone but Hillary that you imply.

Indeed Florida is opposite of your suggestion, Virginia I have no hope for, and Ohio I thought polled well for all three - at least that is my short term memory.

But as to gist of your post - I agree.

It will be close - and it is way to early to even poll in my opinion - but that is what we seem to talk about a lot here on DU.

[Awsi Dooger]

70. I'm not basing it on state polls

I basically don't care about polling this far out, other than how one candidate fares in relation to another, vs. the GOP contenders. Hillary generally doesn't do as well as Edwards or Obama in the key states, when matched against Giuliani or McCain, etc. I think there's some logic behind that, primarily that it still might be too early for a woman. Any woman. Those states have no history of electing women to major statewide office.

I think Hillary can win but she would need a big generic boost, which any Democrat can conceivably have in '08. If she doesn't have the huge tilt of the nation in her favor I think she would need the best head-to-head matchup, perhaps against Romney or even McCain. I don't like her chances against phony Giuliani.

I like to look at statewide voting history and then apply the current climate to adjust, instead of relying on absurdly early polls.

[More Than A Feeling]

17. Of course it will be hard. It'll just be harder for the Republicans. n/t

[madfloridian]

19. I think you should link to who said that, and the rest of the stuff following.

It would be interesting.

[calteacherguy]

38. There is no transcript available yet, and who said it is not as important as the question. nt

[LBJDemocrat]

20. It will be difficult because of Iran

You might be saying to yourself, "What? Wouldn't that make it easier for the Democrats to win, if the American people are already sick of the war in Iraq?" I say, no. The media will cheerlead for war against Iran. The Democratic candidate will support it, but in a more nuanced way: "We should deal with Iran, but it's too early." The Republicans will look "tough on terror." Same shit as usual.

[madfloridian]

21. Here you go.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/25/12940/9357

The push for the military will continue.

[calteacherguy]

34. Do you have an opinion on the poll question? nt

[Greyhound]

22. I agreed because the election is so far away and the Democratic politicians are

caving so regularly, and on issues vital to their constituents, that they may well stick us with another round of Republik rule.

The useless provisions in the trade bill are an excellent example, they gave arbusto_® & Co. everything they wanted and got not one damn thing in return. How do they think they can maintain a lead doing this kind of stuff?
:think::dunce:

[madfloridian]

23. This was said by a general who might run.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/25/12940/9357

And I think he should not have said it. It came across as self-serving.

[calteacherguy]

35. Did you attend the event? Do you know the context in which it was said?

Do you think it's not going to be difficult for a Democrat to win? You are not in a positon to say what should and not be said by anyone. This is America, and people will express what they believe to be true.

It's going to be difficult for a Democrat to win (clean election or not) in 2008. The Iraq war will still be going on, Iran will be an issue, and there will be unforseen events. The dominant issue is going to be national security, whether you want it to be or not.

[Greyhound]

59. Don't know what you read, but I didn't say anything about a "national security candidate".

As long as those in Washington refuse to even mention election fraud (separate issue from voter fraud), let alone do anything about it, it is apparent that the Republiks will maintain a significant advantage in the vote count regardless of how people actually vote.

If the so-called leadership caves on health care, tax reform, official criminality, and declining wages, like they have on the war, the American people will turn their backs on the party, just have they have done before. The people always vote for the Democrats to change whatever is happening in, or the direction of, the country. When the Democrats do not make the changes, the people no longer have the patience to wait for 2 or more cycles in the hopes that someday they will, and the gains made are reversed as they "throw the bums out".

The safe seats stay safe, but the majority switches. The "leadership" of course are all in those safe seats, and so their careers continue, but the country just keeps getting worse. We are still over a year and a half away from the election and significant things are going to happen in that time. As long as the Democratic leadership continues to sell out their constituency to the interests of their big donors, more and more people will seek alternatives. It is quite possible that we will see a repeat of 2000 in 2008.

[madfloridian]

64. Maybe someday, people will read links.

I was simply telling you more about who said it and I put a link. I was not disagreeing with you...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/25/12940/9357

"In an appearance at the Hewlett Teaching Center at Stanford former 2004 presidential candidate Wesley Clark said he thinks the 2008 race will be about national security and "it's going to be very difficult for a Democrat to win."

"Someone asked why the Democratic Party seemed not to be as interested in finding a "national security" candidate, and if there was still room for someone else to get in the race. He said, "yes," and explained how there was a lot of momentum for Hillary Clinton because of Bill Clinton and her own accomplishments, so that has created a unique dynamic in the race. He did say he believed the election would be about national security, and "it's going to be very difficult for a Democrat to win." He brought up a hypothetical "October suprise" from, say, Bin Laden. He said he thought that was why Kerry had lost.

However, he also repeated that "I haven't said I won't" and he thought there was still time for someone else...the "hypothetical" national security candidate, to get in the race. After seeing his body language when he said it, I feel there is more of a possibility than I thought that he will end up running...take it for what it's worth.'

[snowbear]

25. CalTeacherDude... this has to be the ABSOLUTE WORST thread you have ever started ..

First of all, it is DEAD wrong.

Secondly, it goes against every single piece of polling data taken- which has been consistent for close to a year now.

And finally, even if it was Al Gore you happened to run into that told you such a ludicrous thing, I would have NEVER posted it on DU.

What an upbeat Saturday thread.

I dub this the worst thread you have ever created in your history at DU.

-----> The WORST ever! <----

[Awsi Dooger]

28. You kill me with the choice of smilies

I always end up looking at the clever smilies then eventually read the words that lead to them.

[calteacherguy]

36. Are you being tongue in cheek? Sarcastic?

I'm not sure, help me out here...

[Adelante]

74. I don't understand your reaction, larissa

Can you explain, please.

[Comicstripper]

27. We don't have a parliamentary system

Americans don't vote for parties, they vote for individuals. A Democrat would have a better-than-average chance of winning in 2008, but not by much. It depends on the nominees. Scandals will arise, news stories will change the national stance on a handful of issues, late-night comics will make jokes, caricatures and personas will be defined... Nothing means anything yet.

[madfloridian]

29. It was General Clark who said this...then he said he hadn't said he wouldn't run

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/25/12940/9357

This puts a different slant. I don't think he should be saying that a Democrat can not win in 08. All the evidence shows we have a great chance.

If he is going to run, then run. But stop going for the fear factor.

We already have Bush doing that. We don't need to join him.

[calteacherguy]

37. Clark did not say that a Democrat couldn't win in 08'. nt

[madfloridian]

40. ""it's going to be very difficult for a Democrat to win."

He should not be saying that.

[calteacherguy]

41. Why? Because you happen to disagree? I happen to agree.

I think it would be dangerous for The Democratic Party as a whole to believe 2008 is going to be easy based on the poll data we are seeing now. Polls are polls. Look at the bigger picture of where we are and where we are headed. You you have a different opinion fine; I would never tell you shouldn't say something you believe to be true.

[madfloridian]

44. You don't get it.

I did not say it would be easy.

I think Clark was self-serving when he said that.

We do not have to keep the nation in fear to win. We can also point out what Bush is doing with the terror terror terror stuff.

We are better than that.

[calteacherguy]

45. You don't get it.

Almost Clark's entire speech was what Bush is doing with the terror terror terror stuff.

I think I'm in a better position that you to form an opinion on Clark's motives since I was there, heard it in context, and you weren't. And, I think you are self serving when you make comments such you are making...considering you are an Edwards partisan. I would not speak the same of Edwards; I believe Democrats need to respect each other more than that.

I'm looking forward to the transcript and audio becoming available, and I hope you are too.

[calteacherguy]

46. I'm not certain he said it was going to be very difficult for a Democrat to win.

I believe he said it was going to be difficult. I'll get make to you when the transcript becomes available, I'm unsure of the use of the modifier.

Either way, I happen to agree.

[madfloridian]

48. I was going by the MyDD post to which I linked.

I would prefer you not call me a "partisan" anything. I support Edwards, so does my hubby. But our heart is still with someone who won't ever be president because the party won't allow it.

Clark is fooling around about getting in just like he did in 03. We all remember that well.

Talk to the MyDD poster if you think they are wrong.

[calteacherguy]

51. Clark's not fooling around.

He is seriously addressing the issues facing this country, getting the message out, and doing as a non-candidate. That is deliberate because once someone becomes a candidate everything they say is looked at through a partisan lens.

First of all, why should any Democrat who wants to run have to run this early? It's WAY too early, imo. Second, you assume Clark is doing all he does for his own personal political ambition, which he is certainly not. He's not a poltician, he's a statesman. Whatever Clark does, he will continue to be an asset to the Democratic Party and help us win in 08', just like he helped us to win in 06' (and did his best in 04' for Kerry/Edwards).

I have a great deal of respect for Dean, it's unfotunate you refuse to respect Clark and continually question his character. Attacking Clark, or any Democrat, the way you do isn't going to help the Democratic Party win.

[madfloridian]

54. You show respect for others as well. Works both ways.

You don't appear to know much about 04.

[calteacherguy]

55. Respect for others works for me.

Clark has always shown respect for fellow Democrats, as has Dean and all of our truly great leaders.

[calteacherguy]

39. I think it's to early to run.

A few months should be more than enough time for the voters to decide. I don't think this early running serves the system well, just the big $$$ donors. A lot will change between now and the Iowa primary. I feel a lot of political energy is being misappropriated.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our second quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Jed Dilligan]

42. It will be difficult for a presidential candidate to win in 2008

if he/she fails to distance him/herself adequately from the current administration.

Party affiliation is negligible in comparison.

[calteacherguy]

43. I agree. nt

[MrPrax]

53. No way...Dems all the way...

Here's my prediction:

Hillary Vs. Mitt

The system has to be legitimized again with a Democratic President.

The corporate go-to-guy is Hillary.

The oligarchy will run the 2002 French Presidential Script.

Low turnout, everyone will hold their nose and vote for Hillary, to keep out a retarded fascist that even scares the ruling class.

The Pukes will regain Congressional authority and it will be back to the 'good cop/bad cop' 90s, new and improved with more war and speculative 'war' bubbles to replace the dot.com ones.



(boy...do I take the fun out of punditry)

[tkmorris]

56. LOL you're cute

Really.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

57. Disagree. Al Gore will win in a landslide. n/t

[LibDemAlways]

58. I was going to say the same thing. Gore is a sure bet.

[kiteinthewind]

62. . nt

[Labors of Hercules]

66. WOW. Now that's an idea!

What's your reason for believing that Gore would have this level of support among the body politic? (not that I disagree with you, obviously.. :) )

[tinfoilinfor2005]

68. Better minds than mine have been saying that lately.

Steve Jobs, Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore to name three, and several whose names escape me. But I would have to say that there is a certain buzz and energy surrounding him lately that is just undeniable. Good vibes.

[Labors of Hercules]

71. There's a lot to be said for intuition.

And a lot to be said for the man who fights within a fucked up system and loses, only to step away from it twice as strong and twice as likeable as he was before... He won the popular vote even then, and now, with this rock-star buzz he's creating just by being himself? Personally, I think the guy HAS BECOME in the past 4 years an UNSTOPPABLE political force like we never dreamed he could have been when his presidency was stolen in 2000, and I am very excited about it!
:woohoo:

[rhett o rick]

63. There won't be an election in 2008. The neocons aren't going to let it happen. nm

[rep the dems]

69. I can't say I agree with that but that's ok. nt

[treestar]

65. That's dumb, it's too soon for one thing, and the only way to end

the war is to have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress, and even they won't find it easy, and will get everyone's wrath.

The repukes started this mess and will sit back while the Demorats have to fix it.

Sort of like Reagan and Bush I and the economy, until Clinton turned it around, and then repukes just claimed the successful 90s economy was because of stuff the repukes did earlier.

[Labors of Hercules]

72. Yep. The Democrats have to fix it.

It sucks, but that's the way it is. And when they do, some other Repuke shitheads are gonna find a way to weasle their way back into power and fuck things up again. It's what you call a vicious cycle.

[Colobo]

67. Obama will win easily.

[skipos]

73. Hillary generally underperforms Obama or Edwards in gen. elec. polls

and I think there are many reasons she will have a tougher time than them in the g.e.

It all depends on who we nominate.

[illinoisprogressive]

83. I agree. it depends on who we nominate.

[wildhorses]

75. it ain't over til its over and,

that is long way from here.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

78. Hell yeah its going to be difficult!

Its always going to be difficult, especially when you have engineer a blowout because the GOP will find a way to steal it.

But Greg Palast said it best...QUIT WHINING, START WINNING! If it takes 55% of the vote for us to win. Lets get it!

We have a job as democrats ahead of it. The job is simple, but it will be hard.

Our job will be to get people involved. We have an army of millions of people who feel they have no stake in America. They don't vote, yet they get the brunt of bad policies.

Many of them a young. Many of them are poor. Many of them have been downsized, rightsized, disaffected.

Many of them don't wear white skin.

Many of them want better, yet the powers that be ignore their cries.

Many of them are us, but they just haven't been brought into the game.

That our key to victory. Instead of trying to cater to people who will never vote for us. Lets get the people who will vote for us and if we bring real reasons to do it to the table.

I don't want to just win in 2008. I want a Maine to Hawaii blowout, baby! I'm talking wholesale NATIONAL REPUDIATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

I don't want it to be close in '08.

[wildhorses]

81. never underestimate the gop

bad mistake

[Cameron27]

80. I hope it's not going to be difficult

but I was absolutely sure that the country would laugh Reagan right out of contention, and I thought the shrub would be crushed in an overwhelming landslide both times. x(