Every election is the same damn thing from the MSM: demoralized Dems running on empty

[ProSense]

Demoralized Democrats may squander a chance to retake the House

December 04, 1995|By Jack Germond & Jules Witcover

<...>

The real problem for the Democrats, however, is not simply the exposure of more seats to the Republicans. It is the lack of a unifying theme to use as a way of nationalizing the House campaign as the Republicans did so successfully in 1994 by running against President Clinton and the Democratic establishment then controlling Congress.

The president's standing with the electorate has improved somewhat in recent weeks. And Democrats are encouraged by signs of weakness in the support for his most likely opponent, Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole. But there is not yet a Democratic agenda coherent and comprehensive enough to include both the president and the party's Senate and House candidates.

The Democrats are hoping that the Republicans will trigger a backlash among voters unnerved by extremism. But that is not the same as having a positive Democratic Party message.

Demoralized Dems

Why the party has so little faith in its political prospects.
updated 9/28/2005

With George W. Bush’s presidency mired in the muck of hurricanes and doubts about the war, you’d think Democrats would be bursting with energy, eagerly expecting to regain power. But, in a roomful of well-connected Democrats the other night, I was struck by how gloomy they were. They can’t stand Bush, but didn’t have much faith in their own party’s prospects.

<...>

Lack of star power
These things go in cycles, I guess, and it’s hard to be glamorous when you are in the minority in both houses of Congress. That said, it’s incontestably true that the Democrats simply aren’t blessed with much charisma in the leadership ranks—unless you consider Angelina Jolie a Democrat.

The GOP has Rudy, Colin, Arnold, McCain and Condi—just to name a few: big, bold, controversial characters. Good copy if nothing else. The more or less official roster of titular Democratic leaders includes Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and 2004 nominee John Kerry. ‘Nuff said.

<...>

What Big Idea would a Democratic presidency be about? No one seems to know, which is perhaps the main reason why the party faithful in that room seemed so lost.

[Vincardog]

1. It might help if the Democratic 'leadership' remembered the Democratic PLATFORM and worked FOR THE

WORKING PEOPLE of this country,

OH yeah FUCK the DLC

[griffi94]

5. yep

if the dems get hammered it's because voters no longer trust that the leadership and the rank & files priorities match.

[ProSense]

6. Frankly,

fuck the MSM, the 2005 article especially. Dems made gains in every election from 2005 on, crushing the Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

So yeah, there are always issues but the media assholes always seem determined to portray Democrats as the party of no ideas when the Republicans are running on a non-existing agenda.

[bvar22]

16. The Democratic Leadership campaigning FOR Specter & Lincoln...

...in The Primaries didn't help fire anybody up for More Hope & Change.

[NorthCarolina]

19. What he said...

:applause:

[griffi94]

2. yep it sucks

but by now you shouldn't really be surprised. what did you think would happen.

[Oregone]

3. Well, its demoralizing to squander opportunities

Ya do it to yourself, you do, and thats why it hurts

[MrModerate]

4. I haven't really been able to get a feel for what the dem-leaning people are really feeling . . .

Having been out of the country for most of the last three years. But my great fear is that the wackos are all charged up and everyone else is dispirited.

That's what it looks like from where I'm sitting. However, that perception is born of the fact that I'm restricted to the limited range of US News programs shown over here (Fux News and CNN, primarily) and, of course, Internet news and political sites.

The problem with relying on the net for news is you don't get a feel for how broadly a sentiment is actually held, and how intensely -- because pretty much *everything* on the net is intensely felt. One ends up with no calibration.

So I hope the MSM is wrong again and the dem-leaning voters realize a) how disastrous significant 'lican victories would be and b) how potent it would be if dems kicked 'lican butt.

[OHdem10]

7. The Party seems to go out of their way to find--quiet non-confrontational

cookie cutter types to run for a seat in House or Senate.

The Prerequiste characteristic: I will stay out of the
limelight, avoiding cameras like the plague.

I must be a master of equivocation. Taking a firm stand
is verboten.

Seriously, the Democratic Party has a structural problem.
Two very different wings and as much as they say We are
unified--they cannot truly unite. Conservatives and Liberals
are not oil and water but they are close to it. Since they
cannot unify it is expected that the Liberals sit down shut
up and follow the lead of the Conservatives. This leads to
ill will. The most serious problem they have--allowing
each and every person to do what she or he thinks best and
will help him/her individually. Never what is good for\
party, much less what is good for the country. In other
woors, can you really call it a party??

[YOY]

8. Even more thought provoking...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-7ICRXYvSQ

[depakid]

9. errr... no-

Not in the last two election cycles.

And not in several election cycles in the past two decades. 1998 for example.

People might do well to consider why that was.

[ProSense]

10. Errr

"What Big Idea would a Democratic presidency be about?"

The 2005 article was about the last two election cycles: 2006 and 2008.

[depakid]

12. A 2005 article about 2006 & 2008?

No matter- keep spinning away.

There are reasons for the Democrats wins- and losses that aren't related to the media's takes. People will either consider them, or they won't.

[ProSense]

14. Yeah, that's

unheard of. After all, no one was writing about the 2010 and 2012 elections in 2009.

When was the next Presidential election after this question: "What Big Idea would a Democratic presidency be about?"

[depakid]

15. You tell me what the bid idea was- or is

Me, I thought it was about solving 21st Century problems with responsible public policy and returning accountability under the rule of law to pre-Bush norms.

Events have shown that I was mistaken. Perhaps there was something that I missed?

[jaksavage]

11. Librul media

they just can't get it right.

[BlueIdaho]

13. Not me, I'm fired up and ready to go!

The MSM has a narrative they desperately want to push - that's a kind way of saying they are making shit up to kiss their bosses' asses.

Prove them wrong - knock on doors, make calls, donate what you can when you can. We can't afford to let Mitch the bitch, the Boner, and his little dog Cantor take control again.

[golfguru]

17. The Senate is now in play per this article

http://www.tnr.com/blog/william-galston/76247/attention-democrats-the-senate-now-in-play

I am not sure if TNR is a republican mouth piece.

[ProSense]

18. Let's see

potential for Dems:

CA Fiorina (R) 47, Boxer (D) 45 (win)
CO Buck (R) 48, Bennet (D) 39
FL Rubio (R) 36, Crist (I) 34, Meek (D) 15 (seat currently held by a Republican)
IL Giannoulias (D) 40, Kirk (R) 39 (win)
KY Paul (R) 43, Conway (D) 43 (could win, loss of a Republican seat)
MO Blunt (R) 48, Carnahan (D) 43 (could win, loss of a Republican seat)
NV Angle (R) 48, Reid (D) 41 (win)
OH Portman (R) 43, Fisher (D) 39 (seat currently held by a Republican)
PA Toomey (R) 45, Sestak (D) 39 (could win)
WA Murray (D) 47, Rossi (R) 47 (win)
WI Feingold (D) 45, Johnson (R) 43 (win)

I'm not understanding his math because four of those seats are currently held by Republicans.

So if Dems win those three of those four seats, they break even if three incumbent Dems lose. If Dems fail to pick up those seats and lose three incumbent seats, they come out ahead 55 to 45. If Dems lose seven seats and fail to pick up any of the four currently held by Republicans, they come out 51 to 49.

Am I missing something?

[golfguru]

20. There is NO math, it is all guesswork

By definition, "math" pertains to working with exact values.
There are no approximations in mathematics.

That author is trying to make his piece interesting by throwing out
some "possibilities". No one knows who the final winners will be.
I don't know, he don't know and you don't know for sure.

What I am trying to say is take all election prognostications with a
good dose of salt.

[Moochy]

21. didnt see this on wed

Kick