<p>The Democrats had it tee’d up for them. The opportunity to seize the all-important middle-ground of American politics back from the Republicans by riding the demographic advantage of the woman’s vote and anger over the the Iraq war. Instead, the same old cast of losers (Kerry, Bradley, Brazille, Kennedy, Dean, et al) has grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory.</p>
<p>IMO, losing this election, an election that was there for the taking, will be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. The Republicans aren’t stupid. They are already moving to take the Jesus Freak millstone off their necks and move towards the center. Due to the Democrats ineptness, they will beat the Dems to the punch and the Dems will be back in their usual position as the party of Dukakis, Kerry, and Dean – unable to carry any of the key swing states like Florida, Ohio, etc. The Dems will probably lose Pennsylvania and Michigan, and go down to a crushing defeat in November.</p>
<p>And that’s before we even talk about blowing a golden opportunity for the Dems to solidify the fastest growing demographic group in the country – Latino/a voters.</p>
<p>Forget the polls. It’s all about the dynamics of the election. Nobody wins the White House without the votes of “Reagan Democrats” – working families in the key swing states like Florida and Ohio. There’s no electoral math that really works for either party losing both Florida and Ohio.</p>
<p>There’s no math that works for the Dems, period, without massive turnout among women voters. Women’s turnout is the reason Kerry got clobbered compared to Gore. High womens turnout is the reason the Dems took control of Congress in 2006.</p>
<p>Hillary tried to run the campaign that would be required to win in November, staking out the center ground from day one.</p>
<p>The nomination would have been hers on Super Tuesday if the DNC had not changed the rules mid-stream and wiped out the momentum from big wins in key swing states Florida and Michigan. Those big wins, of course, proved to be the rule as Clinton has proceeded to win every key electoral college state except Illinois: Mass, NJ, NY, Penn, Ohio, Florida, Calif, Mich.</p>
<p>The Dems don’t care. They’d rather lose. This is a battle between the Dean/Dukakis/Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party that has lost the White House for 36 years and a Democratic Party that has some appeal to centrist voters. The Dean DNC is stocked with latte-liberals. Just look how out of touch the elected officials in our state are with their own voters…</p>
<p>I-Dad, I agree with your assessment … and for obvious reasons. The unfortunate part is that it was so predictable. </p>
<p>As far as, “And that’s before we even talk about blowing a golden opportunity for the Dems to solidify the fastest growing demographic group in the country – Latino/a voters” that goes to the heart of the problem with the inept Dems. One only needs to look at how the “machine” has treated Bill Richardson, who is one of the most viable candidate to represent the fast-growing population of Hispanics. Take them for granted and they might looking at better alternatives, including at the other side of the political spectrum. </p>
<p>Well, let me take out my critical reading skills.</p>
<p>This statement could be interpreted as follows:
HRC expected to be nominated in November. She did not expect to need delegates from Michigan or Florida and did not raise any objection to their not being seated at the convention. As McAuliffe said in 2004, “the rules are the rules.”
HRC in the summer of 2007, did not expect any serious challenge. Instead, she expected a triumphant march toward a coronation. All obstacles would fall away in her path that would be lined with adoring masses. That rosy scenario was seriously challenged in Iowa but suffered a fatal blow on Super Tuesday. Why should Dems be blamed by the arrogance inherent in that fantasy? What HRC has done since then is try to destroy Obama, to make him ineligible even if she loses the primary fight. </p>
<p>Bill has been described as a sore loser. So is she.</p>
<p>Xiggi: I’d love an Obama/Richardson ticket.</p>
<p>I-dad, I believe that finding the “perfect” candidate who can please everyone is an impossible task. However, Bill Richardson has to be considered one of the few politicians who has been effective and has his heart in the right place–despite being an former FOB. Also, I think that he looks much better when compared to the rest … of the choices. </p>
<p>Even if stance on homosexuals is not adequate in your eyes, it remains that it his position seems to be in accord with his constituency’s as Hispanics do not tend to be liberals across the board, especially when it comes to sexual choices. </p>
<p>And, I’d prefer a Obama/Richardson ticket over anything that has the name Clinton on it. I might even be convinced to cast my vote for 'that" democrat ticket. Doubtful but possible.</p>
<p>Richardson has a great resume, but he was disappointingly unimpressive in the debates. And Obama is so damaged now for the general election he needs someone who will help him more in the battleground states with demographic groups he has yet to prove he can win over (e.g., moderate white middle class males). Obama might not best McCain with this group, but he has to increase his numbers to be competitive. I don’t care what his campaign manager says to the contrary. To be blunt, a left-leaning African-American/Latino ticket might do well in some Democratic primary/caucus states, but not in a general election.</p>
<p>Save your tears for Howard Dean and Donna Brazille. I’m done with the Democratic Party.</p>
<p>I voted for the most consistently pro-choice candidate who’s ever run for the Presidency as did the overwhelming majority of voters in my state. The Superdelegates from my state, including Perrenial loser John Kerry and Perennial Loser Ted Kennedy thumb their noses at the voters of their state. So, my goal in November will be to do my share to throw Kerry out of office. </p>
<p>He’s worthless, anyway. What did he say this week? Healthcare reform is off the table for the Democrats?</p>
<p>simba,
Many pundits have pointed out that the difference in policy issues between the two Democratic candidates is minimal. How is one candidate more “neo-lib”?</p>
<p>Just admit that you are voting on personality. (“empty,shallow, and yellow belly”…)</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if you get called on this by some of the cc critics. </p>
<p>Obama has the voting record of the most liberal of any of the senators…granted his record is not very big to make a true judgement, but then again that is the other problem he faces</p>
</p>