Is there a consistent pattern here?

[Blue_Roses]

I have been a Democrat for 25 years and I swear I continue to think I've seen it all, but after last night's theatrical show in California, I guess not.

I stayed up late to watch the returns, the speeches, and the commentaries by the media whores themselves. I'm tired and know I'm not alone. I have been pounding my head and scouring what's left of the "awake" cells to try and figure out how this guy pulled this off.

It's blatently clear a candidate won on his celebrity status, so I guess we it's time to start a draft for Martin Sheen, who I think is more qualified to be President than the current resident in the WH. Whether I say this in jest or not, still remains some truth here. A celebrity who embodies strength (even though he is VERY weak on issues and experience) wins. Is this what Americans are looking for?

As I look back at the history of Presidential elections, there is a similar pattern.

Carter/Reagan--Carter viewed as weak, unpopular; Reagan, celebrity appearing to take control (we know how that ended up)

Bush/ Dukakis--Bush winning off of Reagan; Dukakis not able to get a foothold

Bush/Clinton--Bush says, "no new taxes," loses--weak; Clinton takes the Dem party and runs with it!

Clinton/Dole--Clinton still strong and builds strong economy--wins; Dole "who"?--loses

And here's the tricky one:

Bush/Gore--Gore coming from a scandal in the WH; Bush "selected" --

I lived in Texas during the governorship of Ann Richards and watched Bush stomp over Ann Richards to get to Austin...the setting was similar to those who lost above. I was sickened to see how he used the vunerable incumbent to trash her governorship.

There is a pattern. Weakness is the root of any failure.

Bush may indeed be in trouble in '04--that is if we can work on his weaknesses and not exasperate ours. I think I need a nap.

What do you think?

:kick:

[forgethell]

1. I disagree with

your analysis of Bush/Clinton. Bush the Elder lost because he reneged on his "no new taxes" pledge, not because he made it. He abandoned his base, and they abandoned him.

This is the same thing that keeps happening to the Democratic Party. they keep trying to appeal to the "center" instead of their base. Just watch. In the general election, the Democratic nominee will lunge much further right than Bush* will slide left. Many will feel betrayed and stay home, and the R*s will be in again. I hate to be cynical, but I haven't seen much to convince me otherwise.

[Blue_Roses]

6. that was my point

"no new taxes" and then backing down demolished him...

anyway you look at it, he wasn't prepared for what hit him...weak

[azrak]

2. I see a pattern

the democratic party refuses to realize that they need to move closer to the center. They are out of touch with the majority- 60% in Calif. 70% according to the gallup polls.

Then everyone jumps up and down and points fingers. It is depressing.

Supposedly the "higher" ground party pulls crap like bringing up a 30 year old DUI on Bush the week end before the election, and all of these women who were "groped" by AS the week end before the election. The statute of limitations on sexual battery is 1 year, no charges can be filed because this is old stuff. But it can come out in the news in a last ditch effort to sway the voters. But what would drive me to marking an X in the (r) side of the ballot is the f--ing hypocrisy of Clinton's sex life doesn't matter but Arnold's does?? WTF is up with that.

I am depressed today and it is something chocolate or tequila won't cure. We can't untie enough to save California how in the HELL will we unite enough to save the country. Dean will go down like Dukakis did, Kerry has been labeled the dreaded "liberal". What the hell are our choices? I like Edwards but the time isn't right for him. I hope the time is right in 2008.

Because of the self destruction and denial I see here I fully expect Bush to win in 2004. Not because of any conspiracy, if there is a conspiracy it is in the DNC/DLC to run "can't win" candidates and then cry because they lose. I submit California as proof.

Deny! We got our asses kicked in 2002 we got our asses kicked last night, now what?? You tell me!

[nannygoat]

3. There's no hypocrisy with Clinton's sex life vs Ahnold's

One refers to consensual sex and the other, for the most part, doesn't--unless you consider women being gang-banged and groped and sexually abused against their will as consensual?

Check this DailyHowler out:

AN AGE OF PROPAGANDA (PART 1)! Matthews groped for ways to help Arnold. We found it a sign of the times:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh100603.shtml

[forgethell]

4. Oh, c'mon now

chocolate will cure anything. Tequila, I don't know. What I do is ask myself "why?" What are the voters trying to tell us? When we figure it out, we can win.

[denverbill]

5. Celebrity beats ability every time.

Look at Jesse Ventura. Look at Fred Grandy (gopher from the Love Boat). Look at Steve Largent, the Bush boys, Arnold.

Robert Redford could win any elective office he ran for.

[Blue_Roses]

8. there are alot of

Dem celebs who are qualified to run. Especially now that we see it doesn't matter what political experience is needed to win and there are MANY who have the intelligence and knowledge of the issues to take on this daunting task.

I'm not saying this is the solution, it's just a fact that strength is a quality that wins.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

7. and it doesn't take a genious to figure out why they hate us and do not

want our brand of democray nor our culture in their socioties. and it's not just the middle eastern countries that don't want americanism...it's all of the EU and world....we are sick