Fuck it. Wer'e doomed. Why even TRY to take the WH in 2008

[CatWoman]

It's no use.

Just accept defeat and move the hell on.

Winning the White House? History's Against Them

The Democrats' road to the White House in 2008 runs through Congress, and it is uphill all the way. The last time either party captured the White House two years after wresting control of both House and Senate in midterm elections was in 1920. Democrats who think that it is their turn to expand their pet programs and please their core constituencies have forgotten how quickly congressional heavy-handedness can revive the president's party.

Right now, President Bush is a lame duck and an albatross. His approval ratings are in the 30s, the GOP has splintered, the economy is sputtering and the public believes that the Iraq war is hopeless.

However, such troubles are not unusual for a president whose party has just lost control of Congress.
It is far too soon to count the Republicans out -- or even bet against them. At this point in 1995, President Bill Clinton trailed Bob Dole in polls, and only 55 percent of Democrats even wanted him to run for a second term. The parties that lost control of one or both houses in 1994, 1986, 1954 and 1946 all won the White House two years later.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901885.html

[rocktivity]

1. HIT PIECE ALERT!!!

It's too soon to count out the Repubs, but not the Dems? History may be against us, but the voters aren't. Is this WAPO's way of "making up" to Bush for the Walter Reed story?


rocknation

[CatWoman]

4. oh, it's only just begun. two for the price of one.

The 'Surge' Is Succeeding

A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.

Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.

Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html

[Monkeyman]

8. Email from my Family in Iraq

Bagdad is not where they are hitting now. They have moved out of Bagdad and are hitting where are troops are not at.

[aquart]

15. Cool. What would that significant effect be, exactly?

Btw, can you tell me the number of belligerent nations who have won wars fought by guerillas (insurgents)?

Say, since 1776?

[villager]

2. they will look for anything to spin events in the GOP's favor... Frankly, the "Enquirer"

is now more reliable, overall....

[Renew Deal]

3. How many presidential elections occurred after a president lost both houses?

I have a feeling it's 1 and that was in 1920.

[truedelphi]

5. Yeah I agree - it probably does not happen a lot

Losing both houses that is

[Rusty MacHenry]

6. So because of history we should give up

Because of some numbers and stats the Democrats should pack there bags and give up? NO. All of our candidates still need to go out there and fight and win the heart of the voters, don't let a bunch of stats ruin your day. Democrats can do it, they can overcome history.

[dysfunctional press]

10. plus there's that whole illegal "war" thing wild card...

that has to count for something, too.

[villager]

11. here's where the article demolishes its own thesis, anyway:

The president's party begins to recover when he wields his veto pen -- especially if he can establish his relevance as a defender of the center against the other party's excesses...

Bush long destroyed even the remotest hope of pretending to be a "centrist..."

[CarbonDate]

16. Uh, 1994 wasn't *that* long ago, was it?

Seriously, did you even read the OP?

[Renew Deal]

18. Um, the democrats already had the White House.

Seriously, did you even read the OP?

[illinoisprogressive]

7. we never do well when we pick the rational choice rather than the one we are excited about

And why? If we can't get excited over our choice how can we expect indies or crossover repubs to? That's when we screw up. Like Kerry over Dean. Or Dukakis?? please

[Cobalt-60]

9. theres a great line in "the Magnificent Seven"

"I'll shoot the next man that says a word about giving up."
Get a little iron in your spine.
This fight is for the life of the Nation.

[aquart]

12. While we were at war?

[yardwork]

13. This article is B.S.

[USA_1]

14. RED STATERS GET OFF YOUR DUFFS!!!

This is a challenge I posed on another thread but it was ignored.

Each of you knows that Blue Staters busted their asses in the 2004 election but Bush won because the Red Staters sat on their fat asses and did nothing to win over the voters. How many times have we heard or read of vote irregularities in Florida or Louisiana? And why hasn't anything been done to correct that shit?

When will Dems in the Red States get off their duffs and start to register millions of voters so that Congress and the White house can be won from the treasonous neo-KKKon America haters? So far, I have seen absolutely NOTHING in the news or on this forum about news of voter registration efforts. Nothing.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Not buying it

Since 1952, every time but one that a party has been in power for 8 years, the out-party wins the next presidential election. The only exception was 1988, and that was a race that could easily have been won had the Democrats run a better campaign.

Not saying that we WILL win the next presidential race; a lot can happen. But I'd be willing to bet that a Democrat will hold the White House in two years time.

[USA_1]

19. Amen.

All it takes is for those fat ass types in the Red States to register and to VOTE. After what happened in Louisiana and Mississippi because of Katrina, there simply is no excuse for losing those states to the Pukes. Florida should have gone Blue a LONG time ago. But since nothing is done to persuade people to vote and nothing is done to protect voting rights for others in certain areas, the state goes Puke.

As I have said before on this forum, Dems could have won the White House in 2000 and in 2004. Giving it up to the
Pukes was a choice. If the Red Staters would stop waiting for things to happen and instead make things happen, a victory would be assured.

[Laurier]

20. Agreed.

This is a prime opportunity for Dems to win the presidential election, and history suggests that it's a slam dunk, BUT complacency is not an option! We cannot rest on our laurels, so to speak, and must go forward on the offensive to ensure a huge sweep in 2008.

[KoKo]

21. What a Bizarre article! And, I thought Howie Kurtz was bad on CNN this A.M.

NYT's and WaPo...going for broke in dissing their readers who aren't Fox News watchers....

[CatWoman]

22. kick

:kick:

[Perky]

23. YOU START FROM A FAULTY ASSUMPTION: POLITICAL HISTORY IS IRRELEVANT

E

[H2O Man]

24. It's true!

The SKY IS FALLING!!!! Just ask Henny Penny. It's no use. Ask Eeyore. It's hopeless, too. Droopy is depressed about our chances. Gosh, let's quit now.