Seriously if we can't beat the GOP 2008 Prez candidate, our party is dead

[59millionmorons]

There is not one candidate that they have that we shouldn't beat. This is the most pathetic list of candidates in history. If we lose this election the Democratic party will officially be dead. Some may say well McCain could be trouble, but I feel he alienated the bible belt in 2000,

Republican Democratic

Giuliani---- Clinton
Rice ----- Edwards
Allen ---- Richardson
Frist ---- Warner
McCain ---- Bayh
Gingrich ---- Kerry
Pataki ---- Clark

[thefloyd]

1. The democratic party will not be dead

For crying out loud. I think the more important issue currently is 2006. If things do not go better then 2008 will be important BUT if we lose the democratic party will not be lost

[Mojambo]

2. McCain would have been a strong candidate in 2000

But in 2008 he is just a dangerously old man. His health will very much be an issue.

The rest of those numbnuts are pathetic.

Frist and Pataki are the weakest of the bunch but every other potential has at least one serious drawback.

It's a really weak field and their primary could be ideologically fracturing if a guy like Santorum joined them.

[leyton]

3. Is that like how we died all those other times?

During that almost unbroken string of Republican victories from Lincoln to Taft? The three cruddy Republican Presidents of the 20's? Of the 80's?

Please. Enough with the hyperbole.

[ermoore]

4. I dunno. Could be tough.

I mean, Giuliani is very popular and I don't see how you think he wouldn't be hard to beat. His biggest trouble would come from the Right, but if the Repubs could get their side united behind him, it'd be real tough goin'.

McCain, is really tough, and won't have the vulnerabilities that Rudy has from the Right (or at least as many). Also, like Rudy he's popular across the board with a lot of people on both sides of the spectrum. And the Bible Belt would come around given whatever alternative the Dems'll put up (most likely).

Even Rice could be tough. I wouldn't put it past Rove to somehow overcome her record in her previous position. And an africa-american woman would be popular with a lot of people.

The rest you've put forward don't look so tough, but Allen and Pataki, at least, don't seem to be pushovers.

I mean, all of these are probably beatable (I think McCain will be the toughest by far), but haven't the last two elections taught you anything?! Did * look like a tough opponent in 2000 or 2004? Hell, no! He looked like a pushover, particularly in . . . well, in both of them! If we can't nominate a candidate that's worth a damn we'll lose regardless of who the Repugs nominate.

[thefloyd]

7. I am not sure Guiliani is that tough

After the whole Kerik debacle and Rudy's questionable personal life I am really not sure the GOP will rally behind him. I am not sure Christians will really be as political next time around. Before Bush I am not sure the number of christians involved in politics is anything like today. Bush has talked tough on values but honestly has he delivered? I think Christians are particularly sensitive to hypocrisy simple because Christians are constantly bombarded with agnostics and non believers, and even christians views that the radical right are a bunch of hypocrites. The fellow that wrote gods policts was on hannity and colmes and told Fallwell the days of his constant hate speech are over so I think there is a faction among christians developing that will severely undercut the whole radical right christian movement.

[earthside]

5. Pro-War Democrats Cannot Win

Every potential 2008 candidate on your list, with the possible exception of Clark, either voted for the Iraq war resolution or voiced public support for the attack and invasion.

None of those candidates, with the possible exception of Clark, therefore, in my opinion has a chance to beat Jeb Bush (lets get real about what is going to happen inside GOP ranks in the next three years) in 2008.

Indeed, Clinton is moving to the right, Bayh is a right-winger, Kerry - you've got to be kidding, John Edwards who?

(I'll add that Richardson might have a chance, but sometimes he acts like he is scared of Bush and the radical Republicans, too. So I don't know.)

If Lieberman and Nelson decided to join the radical Republicans and support the phase-out of Social Security, and if Clinton and others decide to support military strikes on Syria and taking out alleged nuclear facilities in Iran ... then the Democratic Party will be officially dead by the end 2006. Who is going to vote for GOP-lite?

The only chance for the Democratic Party to survive is to become genuinely progressive and offer a positive liberal vision for the future. Howard Dean may be a step in that direction. but with the Senate Democrats roll over on Gonzales, Rice, Chertoff, and the Class Action legislation ... don't get your hopes up too high.

[saltpoint]

6. I predict a win in 2008 but if not, I plan to live on --

-- as a Democrat.

I prefer the Bill Moyers / Julian Bond / Robert Kennedy Democratic model but I try to play the hand I'm dealt and stay in the action, as Joan Didion puts it.

Who are they going to send up? Your GOP list looks accurate to me. Of our possible candidates, I like nearly everybody on the list, although am lukewarm on Senator Clinton.

THE CAT BUTCHER is their nominee, I think. We'll whup his butt.

[MissWaverly]

8. You forgot Limbaugh in 08

I was just over on E-Bay, they have clocks with Hilary-2008 and Limbaugh-2008, (God help us!)

[DemGirl7]

9. I don't think the Democratic Party is dead....

I mean we lose a few national elections and everyone is calling the party DEAD.The Republicans lost for years/decades on end before recently, and they bounced back...just because the Democrats have a bunch of wounds that need healing doesn't they are finished.Hopefully things will turn around since Dean is now chair, but we need to run those who are not Senators and Representives, and also those who are not from or represent areas where the Democratic party has a stronghold for president, because those areas in my mind will remain very loyal to the party. WE NEED NOT TO IGNORE THE SOUTH...we have done it for too long and we need to gain those votes back, with bread & butter issues, not this "so called Gay bashing moral value BS" those are not real moral values and they are not going to help you get a job, or improve your life in any way,. Plus someone like Giuliani and Pataki wouldn't make good Republican candidates for President, because since the Republican party is now the home of the fundies, and those two or away one like them will ever gain much respect in the party...their main job is to cheerlead.

[i miss america]

10. It's not the party I fear for

but rather, our country

[Laurab]

12. Same here

and I fear for our country now, not in 2008. Election reform would be a great start - and fighting * on every major thing he wants to "fix", as well. There's a lot to worry about before '08.

[borg5575]

11. We should have won in 2004 too.

You say there in no candidate we have who shouldn't beat the Republicans in 2008, but the same applied in 2004. We should have won then too, but look who is in the White House now.

I understand what you are saying. It sure seems like we should win in 2008 but don't be so over confident. Also, if you believe that Kerry really won in 2004 but the election was stolen, what's to stop them from stealing it in 2008 too?

[omega minimo]

18. Do many DU'ers believe Bush won in 2004 (or 2000 for that matter)?

We get down a dozen posts before borg5575 brings this up.

"Also, if you believe that Kerry really won in 2004 but the election was stolen, what's to stop them from stealing it in 2008 too?"

I would like to know how and/or why people are able to skip over the part where our elections and our country have been hijacked already.

How effective will voting reform or candidate grooming efforts be if the larger issues go unaddressed, unexamined?

[BlueManDude]

13. Prez elections are gamed to favor the GOP

the elec college is a sham that gives disproportionate power to solid red states that will NEVER vote for Dem. Throw in the media situation and we won't win in '08 either - but the party won't die.

[WMliberal]

20. just peek at a 1992 or 1996 map. You might be surprised at the results.

Even Montana went blue for Big Dog. Put in someone with his charisma and ability to campaign and it's a cinch.

No state is ever out of the question. Well, maybe Utah is. Seriously though, you sound like we've already lost when the race hasn't even started yet.

[BlueManDude]

22. Clinton did quite well in some Red areas

which was why on election nite when some here were celebrating early on I was not so sure. Kerry never came close in places like GA and LA - states that Clinton picked up. I'm a pessimist no doubt. 1992 seems like a lifetime ago.

[The Zanti Regent]

14. It's rigged for Jeb

The machines are already locked in to elect Jeb Bush in 2008

[leesa]

15. It doesn't make on bit of difference who runs or what they say...if we

can't overthrow the GOP media machine and run the DINOs out of the party, it won't make a damn bit of difference who we court or don't court.

[Placebo]

16. Umm, lets examine history for a second...

1952: Republican
1956: Republican
1960: Democrat
1964: Democrat
1968: Republican
1972: Republican
1976: Democrat
1980: Republican
1984: Republican
1988: Republican
1992: Democrat
1996: Democrat
2000: Republican
2004: Republican

Compared to the past 50 years, losing 3 in a row won't be unprecedented, just another hurdle for us to get over.

[flaminbats]

17. but we won the popular vote in 2000..

Republicans recovered after losing in 1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, and 1948, but why? Republicans don't have a leading candidate for 2008, why don't progressives recruit a primary candidate such as John Kerry or Al Gore to run in the GOP primaries?

For decades in the south..only whites could vote in the Democratic primaries. The GOP rarely had primaries in the south, but steps were rarely taken to stop blacks or whites from participating. Martin Luther King and Andy Young knew that working within the GOP was a lost cause, the only way discrimination could be ended was to confront the source of the problem. Once minorities became active within the Democratic Party, progressives like Lyndon Johnston, Carl Rogers, and Jimmy Carter replaced segregationists like Richard Russell, George Wallace, and Lester Maddox.

If civil rights leaders had worked exclusively within the Republican Party during the sixties and fifties, what would the south be like today?

[Gyre]

19. Don't have to wait till '08, you'll know by Nov '06...

If they've perfected their ability to steal elecions. I think they have and from now on it's nothing but token victories for non-threatening dems. It'll be interesting to see what wakes up the American people.

[Lexingtonian]

21. well, no

First off, that's 62 million non-geniuses.

Secondly, the Republican nomination is between Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. It would be Jebbie's outright if it weren't for his druggie kids.
Thirdly, they won't have any issues to run on. The Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush PR teams have used up all the 'political capital' in resentments and vanities of the past lifetime from the Roarin' Twenties up to the mid-Seventies, so far. And the Bush people are going to use up the ever smaller bits that remain to be tapped from the mid-Seventies to the late Eighties just to keep themselves above water. In fact, we should be getting into liberal backlash territory around 2006/2007. Their side has foreign conflicts and lack of obvious corruption/dissolution as their strong points, but breakdown in those is clearly not far off.

Fourthly, there are a lot of unhappy Republicans waiting for Democrats to get their act together.

Fifth, every national election these days shifts in ever larger increments away from being defined by the ethnic/class blocs of the past. The dynamic is increasingly Modern vs anti-Modern stances on issues, with the anti-Modern side now much better at finding new recruits (i.e. tapping the ignorance and resentments of previously passive voters). But that side is prone to lose voters at a very high rate as they gain perspective.

I think we'll be surprised at how rapidly and thoroughly the Republican domination will collapse: first not at all, then slowly, and then rapidly. Things are far more unstable for them than they appear at the moment. We could see a real disintegration in '06 and a Democratic mandate emerge along with control of Congress.

That would also entail the political end of the Bush Presidency, for all practical purposes- without Congress to protect them, that Administration falls apart in the first series of investigations. It would also mean an end to the Rehnquist Supreme Court. It means a discredited Republican Party in '08- chances are, as I see it, that we'll run Kerry again and he'll win without much effort.

But it will take a Democratic Party that defines itself strongly, that has concrete ideas in all arenas of politics, that has an overriding principle, and that chooses to rule and lead the world's most powerful nation-state.