If Republicans can use terror to beat Clelland, how's Kerry going to win?

[AP]

Just wondering.

There's this idea that if we run Kerry on the grounds that his Vietnam experience makes him good during "war time" (is it war time?) Democrats will win.

Well, Republicans found a way to beat Clelland. How's Kerry going to fare better? Clelland didn't even protest the war (right?).

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

1. Well with all due respect for Georgia

I think the average American is smarter than most citizens from that state.

[AP]

2. Oh yeah? Kerry is ignoring the south because they're all dumb?

Nice to know.

[MarianJack]

6. VA & TN!

He certainly ignored them, didn't he?

[AP]

10. Where people voted for him because he was in first place? Yeah that'll

make him compelling to people come the General Election.

[mountainvue]

19. Well

your previous post did say he was ignoring the south because they were dumb.:shrug:

[AP]

32. I was being sarcastic.

I was commenting on the logic of the post to which I was responding.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. Reality check AP

Kerry just won the two southern states Tennesee and Virginia over two Southerners named John Edwards and Wesley Clark. If he can do that by ignoring the South then imagine what he can accomplish if he tries for their vote.

[Mz Pip]

3. The Dems

are much better prepared this time around and I think Kerry is a lot tougher because he knows what to expect.

Bush may be a war time president but he is an inept one. Kerry is much more articulate and I don't see him letting the Rove machine roll over him without one huge fight.

MzPip
:dem:

[AP]

7. I think the Republicans are a lot better prepared and that Kerry is LESS

able to withstand criticism than Clelland.

[fujiyama]

61. ACtually I'd say...

Kerry is tougher than Cleland. Even though, I myself would rather have Edwards as the nominee, I think Kerry would fight harder and better than Cleland did.

No offense to Cleland, but I'd say that Kerry is overall a better campaigner.

Not only that but there were some particular circumstances surrounding Cleland, such as his opposition to the Homeland Security Bill, because it didn't provide civil service protections. Cleland also didn't run or discuss much on national security. Like many other democrats he ignored the issue altogether. Instead they docused on prescription drugs, social security, and medicare. It was a losing strategy and like those many other democrats, he lost. It was one year after 9/11. Plus, Bush was riding pretty high in the polls at that time...and he was pretty popular in GA.

[MarianJack]

13. You're Right!

Kerry is way too smart to let the rove slime machine do him in without a fight. Now if we could get the sore losers to wake up.

I was prepared (and still am) to support any Democrat over resident bush, but I think that many here are in serious need of training pantsbecause actual voters chose somebody other than their candidate.

[mountainvue]

20. I agree with you MzPip

but Bushie said he was a war president. He wouldn't know about war time if it jumped up and bit him in the ass.

[NWHarkness]

4. Time has gone by

And I think that knee jerk reactions to terror scares are going to be much less effective than they were in 2002.

[AP]

8. How in the world did Clelland lose? If anything, closer to 9-11 his bio

should have made him MORE electable, goes the theory which people are applying to Kerry.

[NWHarkness]

15. Sorry, I don't follow you

[ShaneGR]

21. This is absolutely ridiculous

You are comparing an an election in Georgia, a year after 9/11, to a completely different campaign two years later. I'm starting to get pissed because I have a TON of respect for Cleland and I was actually a contributor to his campaign.

[Mz Pip]

22. I am one of the last

people here you could put a tinfoil hat on but there was something fishy about that election. They had BBV in Goergia and if I remember correctly Cleland was leading in the polls before the election.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, I really hate to be so cynical.

MzPip
:dem:

[OHdem10]

25. How did Cleland lose--

He admits he did not fight back hard enough. I wonder if thought--Surley people will not believe this bull.

This has been a weakness in our our party . There has been a tendency to avoid confrontation--I do not know if think it is beneath them. Kerry fights. He had some tough opponents and
won his seat over and over.

Kerry canwin because he is not afraid to fight and the party has come out from under the rock and are willing to help him fightt
we have to get get behind our candidate and beat the bushes if necessary to find people to bring to the polls.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Your alternative is Edwards? Why?

Why is he a better candidate to go up against Bush on the national security issue?

[AP]

9. The answer lies in FDR and Lincoln.

And especially FDR.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Well, don't leave us in suspense

If Republicans can use terror to beat Cleland, how's Edwards going to win?

It has something to do with FDR and Lincoln? What? Please explain.

[MoonRiver]

18. The "answer" lies in "FDR and Lincoln"???????

"Especially FDR"????

Now, son, you really need to explain yourself.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Please explain.

If Republicans can use terror to beat Cleland, how's Edwards going to win? And what do FDR and Lincoln have to do with it?

[AP]

30. How did FDR beat domestic fascism in the 30s and 40s?

Do you know?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. I'm not going to play some silly game with you.

If Republicans can use terror to beat Cleland, how's Edwards going to win? Why is he immune to Republican attacks?

Just explain, please, don't try to make me guess.

[AP]

41. In the 30s, the Republicans wanted to have a Wall St takeover of the...

government. We had fascism at home. These fascists (Prescott Bush included) loved Hitler the same way Bush loves SH and OBL -- because they scared people. When people are scared they look to authoritarians to protect them and they're more willing to give up their personal wealth (to corporations) in exchange for the idea that they're being protected. Sound familiar?

Well, Hollywood (big business) and the radio stations (big business) used to play the Hitler newsreels at the movies and speeches on the radio to scare people, to help republicans, to help big business. It was really effective because Hitler shouted in a language many people didn't understand. He was terrifying.

FDR knew the score. He knew that he could have put on a uniform and he could have tried to out-scare Americans. But he knew that that was playing on the Republican home-field. He knew that it would be a strategy that would lose, accelerating America toward a Republican takeover.

He went the opposite direction. He put on a sweater, sat down in an easy chair next to a fireplace, and told Americans they had nothing to fear except fear itself. He tried to sooth Americans and keep them focused on optimism and hope. It was the best defense against fascism. THAT'S how you fight fascism.

Who does that sound like to you?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

47. So the answer is Edwards will face the RW attacks by staying all positive?

"These Republican leaders have not been content with attacks on me, or my wife, or on my sons. No, not content with that, they now include my little dog, Fala. Well, of course, I don't resent attacks, and my family doesn't resent attacks, but Fala does resent them. You know, Fala is Scotch, and being a Scottie, as soon as he learned that the Republican fiction writers in Congress and out had concocted a story that I had left him behind on the Aleutian Islands and had sent a destroyer back to find him--at a cost to the taxpayers of two or three, or eight or twenty million dollars--his Scotch soul was furious. He has not been the same dog since. I am accustomed to hearing malicious falsehoods about myself--such as that old, worm-eaten chestnut that I have represented myself as indispensable. But I think I have a right to resent, to object to libelous statements about my dog."--Sept. 23, 1944, address to the Teamsters Union
http://fala-fdr.com/

Sorry, that does not sound like anything like Edwards to me.

[AP]

49. The easy chair, sweater and fireplace wasn't the ONLY thing FDR did, but

it was a VERY powerful symbol.

Don't underestimate it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. So I have it right? Edwards answer to RW attacks will be to stay positive?

And that will make him immune? Is that it, or is there another reason attacks won't work on him?

[AP]

67. What did FDR do? He put the interests of people who work for a living

foremost. He said that a strong America is a democratic America in which power flows down to people who work for a living.

That's exactly what Edwards is organizing his entire campaign around. AND he's got the "nothing to fear" vibe.

It's the total FDR package.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. Does that translate to "Yes"?

[AP]

71. We're back to, "what did FDR do to fight domestic fascism?"

The answer to that question is the answer to your question.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

72. With all due respect, you can only take your FDR analogy so far - please

explain specifically how Edwards will be immune from RW attacks, what specifically distinguishes him from Kerry that make him less vulnerable.


FDR did great stuff - Edwards is not FDR.

[AP]

74. Edwards doesn't play on the Republican home field.

He plays on the Democratic home field -- middle class opportunity, looking after people who work for a living, creating greater social wealth by spreading wealth down and out, working together for a better tomorrow. Like Clinton. Like JFK. Like LBJ. Like FDR.

Republican home field advantage: national security, crime, religion, and anxiety about race.

He has the Republican things covered enough to remove them from the debate (his yes IWR vote, his own religion -- and he won't have to execute a retarded guy like Clinton had to) and he is a walking, living embodiement of the other things so that you can't look at him without forcing a debate on those issues.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. You've repeated some platitudes, but you haven't said anything

about what would make Edwards immune to $200 million of vicious RW attacks, or pointed out any specific reasons why he would be less vulnerable than Kerry.

[AP]

78. I'll repeat this slowly:

You win elections by running on your strenghts, not by trying to patch your weaknesses.

Clinton, JFK, LBJ and FDR have all emblazoned accross the sky the Democratic Party's strenghts, which I listed up above.

Kerry is neither a symbol of, nor does he campaign on any of them. Kerry is a patch for Democratic anxieties about the party's weaknesses. That's never a winning formula.

He started running on national security and a health care plan. His biography, like Gores, will mean that he can't press the case for middle class opportunity.

Edwards is the living embodiement of the strenghts of the party, and he's not vulnerable at all on the weaknesses (and nobody really votes on "experience" -- it doesn't even register in exit polls as a reason people are voting for Kerry).

He is living, breathing homefield advantage for Democrats.

Any candidate will get attacked. However, Edwards is the one who will get attacked and will still win because he strong on the party's strengths.

I know you don't want to believe this, but it's the truth.

[JVS]

79. Sounds reasonable.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

81. You can type as fast or as slowly as you want.

But you still haven't given anything resembling an answer - it's obvious that you don't have one.

[AP]

86. "it's obvious you don't have one"

Right.

[aldian159]

84. Good god man

ANYONE could have beaten Hoover that year. ANYONE. Domestic fascism? Yeah right. The democrats could have run a ticket of a gay minority (no offense to any gay minority, but we're talking 1932) and a black lady (same as above) and they would have won handily.

[AP]

87. HOW did FDR beat Hoover? HOW did FDR keep winning?

That's what I'm talking about.

[JVS]

76. Lincoln, eh. I got it! Edwards is going to call up an army and invade...

the South, from which the GOP draws massive support. Wow. What a revolutionary idea! :-)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

82. Sounds reasonable.

[ShaneGR]

12. Stop with the Kerry attack threads, talk about our positives that beat JK

They won with Cleland because we weren't ready to deal with it. It was a year after 9/11. Now we're ready to deal with it.

[MoonRiver]

14. Georgia Pukes rigged the election with black box voting.

The country is not dominated by this crooked voting system though. I do believe that there's enough animus against BFEE to defeat it in the upcoming election. Dems overwhelmingly want Kerry to be the nominee. They will turn out in record numbers to destroy forever more the villanous House of Bu*h.

[Sperk]

23. That's right. Cleland "won" because of 30,000 patches that were

put on the Diebold machines just before the election. And if Kerry loses this election.....it will be because of BBV.

[mountainvue]

16. This isn't

Georgia. Their idea of Democrat is Zell Miller.

[The Magistrate]

24. An Off Year Election In Georgia, My Friend

And a nationwade Presidantial contest, are two very different breeds of cat....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AP]

28. Wirral South. By election.

They test run the strategies in small markets.

[The Magistrate]

33. It Is A Seperate Niche Market, Sir

What works there does not play well in other venues.

This is not to speak against Sen. Edwards, of course. He is a good man and has conducted himself very well as a candidate.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AP]

37. I think GA and the states around it (and states with similar demographics)

will be key to winning the election.

But I'm asking a bigger question: What is Kerry's strategy for winning this race on national security (almost solely) when the Republicans have demonstrated that they get beat a guy like Clelland in 2002?

I know it sounds like I'm spinning negatively on Kerry. However, it's a serious question. What is the strategy? What more is he going to do that Clelland couldn't?

[The Magistrate]

40. Any State, Sir

That was not largely occuppied by Federal forces during 1862 can be expected to go Republican. The South is not the political battleground. The Ohio valley and the Great Plains are where this thing will be decided. The key to the attack is the lies told by the criminals of the '00 Coup to launch the war, the manifest incompetence displayed in the occupation, the looting of the public Treasury by Halliburton, and the false and hollow swagger of the jackanapes in his flight suit. These things are all already becoming part of the mental furniture of ordinary folks, and will be acted on at the polls come November.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AP]

43. So you don't think Kerry has (needs) any strategy to counter the sort

of offensive the Republicans used against Max, a war hero?

[The Magistrate]

48. They Will Not Morph His Face Into Bin Ladin's, My Friend

Nor will a local contrempts over the banner of Southern treason be any factor, as it was during that race where Sen. Cleland was defeated.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[AP]

50. OK. Sure.

However, I believe Kerry's anti-war activity will hurt him worse than anything Max did as Senator, which was turned against him in that race.

[mohc]

26. GA 2002

Lots of things were going on in the 2002 GA elections. With about a month to go, both Barnes and Cleland had healthy 10 point leads in the polls. Barnes lead actually stayed at 10 up until the last week of October. Ralph Reed, of Christian Coalition fame, simply outplayed everyone. They got the base out, and it simply was not reflected in the pre-election polls. While its possible that BBV had something to do with it, the turnout numbers suggested otherwise. The vile ads against Cleland, combined by a huge turnout among "Flaggers" were simply too much to contend with. We got caught thinking we had a sure thing, and were simply outplayed. Now, that certainly could happen again, but on a national level, I hope we are a little more prepared.

[AP]

29. Let's hear about those vile ads.

As for gettting the religious right out, don't worry. That's coming. Gay marriage.

[notbush]

35. I'm afraid you're right

In the south the gay marriage issue is gonna be tough. I just hope JFK will/can keep his message straight.

[AP]

38. He has a track record for standing up for it, and he's from Mass, and

the Gov of Mass isn't going to be much help.

I'm serious, however. What kinds of ads did the run against Clelland?

[notbush]

42. The basic thrust was

that Cleland was supporting special interests (unions) over national security.
It had to do with the being able to relocate government union workers to other departments.

[AP]

44. Which special intersts? League of Conservation voters?

Labor?

How does Kerry do on those fronts?

[notbush]

54. If I'm not mistaken

Kerry took the same position as Clelland on the homeland security reorganization. However Mass. is a much friendlier state to labor unions than GA. is.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[NV1962]

34. If Republicans can abuse trust to beat Gore, how's anyone going to win?

Just wondering.

There's this idea that if we run whatever candidate on the grounds that his positions and proposals make him good during "election time" (is it an election?) Democrats will win.

Well, Republicans found a way to beat Gore. How's any issue-driven candidate going to fare better? Bush didn't even protest his selection (right?)

[AP]

39. Gore was a bad candidate who got the nomination becuase he was next in

line and not because he was the best Democrat out there.

He also was too similar to Bush in terms of bio and class, which was a big problem.

[NV1962]

45. Yes yes yes... Run an issue candidate up the flagpole, see who salutes

Come back when Dennis Kucinich -- the guy I would love to support, were it not for my cynicism -- actually has a chance of winning the general elections, ahead of more polished types such as a Kerry / Edwards / Dean / Gore.

Until then, I don't place too much trust in your assessment of who "the best Democrat" is; that's also when you can try and explain why Gore and Bush are so, eh, "similar."

Meanwhile, in case you haven't noticed: there's a really annoying primate in the White House who needs to get out of there.

I'll focus on that, instead.

[AP]

46. Similarities:

Both did poorly in Ivy league colleges, floated around for a little while, tried professions their father tried before politics (wasn't Gore Sr a journalist prior to teaching and politics? could be wrong) and then ended up in the REAL family business--politics.

TOO similar.

And, I only point these things out because I want the Dems to win in Nov.

[NV1962]

51. Beautiful

No really, that brought tears to my eyes. I don't know whether to file a complaint for criminal hilarity or just shoot myself.

So, you failed to notice that Kerry and Edwards share the first name, that all current candidates are men, not only that but they all have the eerie coincidence of having had a father, and that all want to be President next year, that the Press somehow pays some attention to them?

That's five coincidences - one more than your list: I won.

D*mn I wish I could stop laughing so I could hold the barrel steady!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AP]

55. Do you like Kevin Phillips? He makes the same point about the field

of Democratic contenders in 2000 in Wealth & Democracy.

So, uh, aim your sarcasm at him too.

[NV1962]

58. Peculiar reflex, that you come up with a Reagan-loving conspirationist...

Have nothing better to read?

:shrug:

[AP]

60. Clinton based his WINNING campaign on a Kevin Phillips book written in 91

(if memory serves) and Buzzflash loves Phillips, and he just wrote a Bush-hating book a couple months ago.

So I make no apologies for believing his argument that class and biography are criticial and that democrats are insane to run candidates against Bushes who don't contrast well in that way.

[NV1962]

70. Buzzflash loves him because he's a right-wing source for their BFEE meme

To wit:
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/04/01/int04001.html

• Kevin Phillips ain't no lefty. He's a former Nixon staffer and authored "The Emerging Republican Majority" back then. He hasn't had any transformation that has turned him into a -- God Forbid! -- Democrat.

Every broken clock...

[AP]

73. Wealth & Democracy was a Buzzflash premium for months.

There's more to it than what you've quoted.

Including:

BuzzFlash: One final background question: you served under the Nixon Administration, and you wrote a famous strategy book, Emerging Republican Majority. Are you an Independent now? Or how do you describe yourself?

Kevin Phillips: Well, I would describe myself at this point as an Independent. If John McCain had decided to run in the primaries against Bush, I would have reregistered as a Republican to vote for him. But, as I get into in the book, as far as I'm concerned, what the Bushes represent is just totally at loggerheads with everything from Abraham Lincoln down to McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, to Eisenhower, who warned about the military-industrial complex. When I wrote The Politics of Rich and Poor in 1990, which attacked Bush economic policies, the lead quote on the back of the book jacket was from Richard Nixon. John McCain and others -- not many -- but they've taken out after Bush Jr., and Ross Perot, and John Connelly, and even Ronald Reagan, didn't have much use for George Bush Sr. So there's a Republican lineage to this too.

It's not that I've just become an Independent, and that's the genesis of my view of the Bushes. My view of the Bushes came out of everything from Teddy Roosevelt down to Eisenhower and Nixon and Reagan.

BuzzFlash: Correct me if this interpretation is wrong -- you haven't stopped being a Republican. It's just the Republican Party under the Bushes has stopped being Republican.

Kevin Phillips: No, I haven't stopped being a Republican, in the sense I'm not registered as one. I voted for Ronald Reagan twice. My disenchantment came when the Republican Party did something I couldn't believe it would do, which was take George H.W. Bush and then, in 2000, take his son. The first one boggled my mind. The second one triple-boggled me.

BuzzFlash: Thank you so much. It was a wonderful book. I enjoyed it, Kevin.

Kevin Phillips: Thank you.

[NV1962]

83. As I said, every broken clock...

Funny that your enthusiasm for Mr Southern Strategy doesn't give you pause contemplating candidates on the more mundane merit of their electoral success probability, which was the starting point here.

Being a "nice fellow" isn't enough, as Kevin Phillips will remind you: "his" Ronald Reagan was a product of his handlers, who had amassed an enormous amalgam of support groups to carry him through.

Things work differently on the Democratic side, because there isn't a comparable common and concentric resolve. I think that is a blessing, as much as I'd like a solidified bloc: the voices of protest that you can see represented also on this forum against the "ramrodding" of Kerry illustrate that such a unified approach is impractical and illusory.

As I said, that's a good thing - if only out of consistency with "our" intent to represent diversity. I think you would agree as well, given the candidate you seem to support, whose last name isn't Kerry.

However, if you're really concerned with notions such as coolly rational electoral strategy (which your apparent interest in the screeds of Mr Phillips suggests) I'd recommend a more sanguine approach of candidates, than your initial appeal to fear of defeat suggests.

Mr Clelland wasn't defeated because he is a war hero, but because fellow Democrats were too yellow to stick with him when and where he most needed it, while under the most revolting smear attack of the same far right that you, me and Mr Phillips want to drive out of the White House.

Just stick with your guy, and I'll support mine: we'll see in a few months who has more success in indentifying "the best Democrat" to do the real job, in November.

[AP]

85. Three things:

1) where in this thread have I said "southern strategy" is the biggest reason JE is the best candidatate. (pssst. I'm saying that he embodies Dem strengths, rather than is a sad attemtp to patch Dem weaknesses, while being a symbol os Dem weaknesses, like, marrying rich is the route to success).

2) Kevin Phillips has been right WAY more than once.

3) Max lost because it's not enough to be a war hero. The argument I'm seeing for Kerry is "vote for him because he served in 'nam." I'm saying, that doesn't work. Here's another example: Bush beat McCain too.

[NV1962]

88. Here's looking back atcha

1) Kevin Phillips is Mr Southern Strategy. Apparently you're not familiar with his work after all, such as his first "political bible" (not my wording, but hey.)

2) ...is right TWICE a day, goes the expression. Must be on of them younguns, who can't figure analog clocks? Either way: if Mr Phillips, as you say, has been right "way more than once" then you're suggesting you are familiar with his work. See #1 for more self-directed abuse.

3) Which is the essence of my point, but you chose to ignore. If you are really that much prone to believing that Kerry advertises himself as The Pick because "he served" I have a nice mountain ridge for sale for you - at a special veteran friend price. Lemme give you a clue: compare the website of your candidate with Kerry's (or Kucinich's or Dean's) and compare the dearth of issue information there with the lack of substantive position papers on Edwards' - there you have my key reason why I don't like your guy. Now, I have heard some refer to him as an empty suit, but I wouldn't be so harsh, plus I'm an optimist: I think it's half full.

You know what, I'm through here.

Ta.

[AP]

89. ...

1) thought you were calling me Mr S.S. Regardless, Phillips's argument in W&D has nothing to do with southerness and a lot to do with class, and his criticisms of Gore and Bradley (and he actually commends Bradley for addressing reality, unlike Gore) apply to Kerry even MORE than they applied to either Gore or Bradley. (Kerry is the richest man EVER to run for president.

2) Yes, I think in terms of digital watch.

3) Have you been to Edwards's web site? It's loaded with info -- it has real solutions, and searchable database of speeches and position papers and press releases. Pick any issue and I'll get back to you with the details. But, A WEB SITE IS NOT A CANDIDATE.

Listen to what they say when they have the attention of the media, and then talk to voters and ask them why they're voting for him. I have yet to hear a voter refer to a candidates web site as the reason, and I have yet to hear a Kerry voter say anything other than "because he's in the lead," or something like that. And any voter who cares about issues, wants someone else. And any voter who can remember the depression wants Edwards;.

[indigo32]

52. And ONLY John Edwards can do that? (win)

I don't think so.

[AP]

56. I'll reconsitute that as a responsive question.

Does Edwards contrast with Bush better than anyone else running?

No. Kucinich and Sharpton aslo contrast well. Kerry and Dean, not enough.

Leno made a joke tonight about Kerry's plan to save America: find a rich country like Switzerland and marry it.

[indigo32]

59. Yup and I'm giving SERIOUS consideration to

caucusing for DK with how things are going for Dean...Kerry will manage without some show of unity from me. In the end I'll vote for the nominee.

[AP]

62. A vote for Kucinich...

...is a vote for Kerry at this point.

[indigo32]

63. and a vote for Edwards is?

I'm having trouble following you here.
maybe it's just late.. but the logic of your statement escapes me.

[AP]

65. ...a chance to stop this crazy idea that one should vote for Kerry...

...merely because he's winning now.

Close that gap between Kerry and Edwards and we can have a real debate on the issues before it's too late.

[indigo32]

66. Ummmm

while I share your concern about having only Kerry... I'm afraid it's already too late.

[AP]

68. If you don't vote for Edwards it will be.

[joshcryer]

77. If you don't vote for Dean it will be.

Opinion is fact.

[AP]

80. PoE and the Magistrate have laid down some good posts today on why

that's no longer the case.

Some candidates are trending down, and some are trending up, and it's highly unlikely that the ones trending down will be able to reverse direction.

[AndyTiedye]

57. Senator Cleland was Robbed (as in "rob-georgia.zip")

and of course the media talking heads blamed it on
a hitherto unknown clutch of "angry white men".

I understand that they still haven't released
the exit-polling data for that election.

The plan is to do the same thing in November,
using gay marriage as cover
for their theft of the election
with Diebold Republican Electing Machinez.

It couldn't be much more obvious.

[neverforget]

90. In 2002, the Dems were spineless and rushed to embrace Bush.

That's not the case anymore. Iraq is a total disaster and the media and the Democrats are starting to question the lies of the Bushies. It's a totally different dynamic now in 2004 than it was in 2002. Plus, I'm not convinced that Saxby "the Chickenhawk Coward" Chambliss won the election fair and square.