Did they explain that to Padgett prior to her starting her campaign? It sounds like she was pretty much blindsided by the news:Gokul43201 said:
Frugality?Gokul43201 said:
from Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_United_States_Senate_election,_2006
It was a verbal brawl. Very little in the way of substantive discussion. I think they both came off as somewhat worse than Hillary. Hmmm, is this anyway to run an election?
Are Democrats addressing or exploiting the public's anxiety?russ_watters said:
Especially since Wal-Mart is currently changing their business practice in a way that addresses the major criticisms directed at the company.Astronuc said:
Not that everyone agrees.
But I must agree that if Democrats want to gain my confidence they need to have a positive message, with solutions, not criticism.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Things have changed a lot since 2004.russ_watters said:
The Webb volunteer was of Indian (South Asian) descent, not native American. His name is Sidharth, but Allen calls him "Macaca" (a kind of SE Asian monkey).wasteofo2 said:
The Dems having an 'exist strategy' would be a change from 2004, when they seemed to have a problem figuring out who they were. (SOS2008 said:
Oh, I just slay myself! )SOS2008 said:
The republicans have a pretty coherent strategy that focuses on national security and points out (but doesn't really do anything to improve) how prosperous our country is.Office_Shredder said:
That's a change since 2004? Uh, IIRC, the 2004 election was decided mostly on the Iraq war based on people not liking it but not thinking it would help to elect Kerry. It was a divisive issue then and that hasn't changed.Skyhunter said:
So much blame to go around, I doubt anyone will risk using Katrina.
Well, economics is always important, but with virtually every economic indicator doing well, the possible future risk of inflation just isn't going to be something the Democrats will be able to get their votors to sink their teeth into. Its just too nebulous a concern that people won't care about. What they will care about is that they bought a house in the past 4 years and are likely to be better off financially than they were 4 years ago.
With the Republicans controlling the legislature, there is simply no way for the Dems to profit from those things. You saw what the Reps did with the minimum wage bill a few months ago, right? The reps will make the dems pay for it big time and will still be able to say they passed it themselves.
Democrats have put initiatives on the ballot in 10 states to raise the state minimum wage. Montana, Missouri, North Dakota, Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Arkansas and Oklahoma.russ_watters said:
Gokul43201 said:
Yes, when local politicians keep their focus local, they'll have a chance. But federal legislators have to hook their wagons to national policy and I'm much more interested in where the country is going than where Arkansas is going anyway.wasteofo2 said:
BobG said:
I'll guess 'a'. Unbelieveable waste of time and taxpayer money. How will this affect the voters' choices in the federal election?
She is younger and much prettier. :!) Reallyruss_watters said:
russ_watters said:
I think both parties need a big turnover. Let some some new people into government, who hopefully aren't beholden to lobbyists and monied interests.
Oops, sorry.Skyhunter said:Russ, how could you confuse me with SOS2008
If you want to see it that way, fine. It still works for a campaign - kinda like the Dems talking about economics and not doing anything about it.
Sorry, that was a prediction on my part. I wasn't clear on that. It died shortly before they broke for the summer and I rather suspect with the election coming and it being a hot issue, they will pass it soon after they reconvene.
"Everything" is a big word and even if there are some things that are screwed-up, now more than ever, the causes can easily be argued to be external. This isn't 1980, when there was only one issue (the economy) and with the exception of the gas prices at the time, there was no way to externalize the problem.
Maybe you guys will find this incredibly cynical, but the reality is that a campaign is not about what is good or bad for/in the country, it is about what politicians can convince the public is good/bad for/in the country (which includes the politician's character). Like the movie quote: "It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove."russ_watters said:
Actually, the most recent polls indicate people have more trust in Democrats to handle Iraq than they do in Republicans. Not that either party can get over 50% of surveyees to say they have trust in them. In fact, as things get worse, the "Neither" option is the one making gains.russ_watters said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14599961/?GT1=8404
First, in regard to intellectual confusion, these idiots need to look in the mirror! And let's stop with the usual cherry picking (if we can even find the tree!). Nazis/Hitler were able to rise in power because people did not QUESTION AUTHORITY until it was too late!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14230700/
As for terror, if we don't have another attack in the US in the next 2 1/2 years, Bush can tie Clinton's record on terrorism (at least in the number of events, if not the number of casualties).russ_watters said:
The price of gas (even if it becomes a bit lower, it will still be high) is not an isolated issue from the bigger issue of a poor energy policy -- No one cares for Bush/Cheney and their oil backgrounds -- or the even bigger issue of inflation.russ_watters said:
Sad, don't you think, that our futures are dependent on marketing rather than real caring for America? How odd that Republicans seem to be so proud of this. It must be a trait of capitalism as it has evolved. It is only important to win, the means do not matter, nor the destruction of the world if that is required.russ_watters said:
Gokul43201 said:
Hmm - didn't realize that. That was different 4 years ago. I see the "neither" category is making the biggest gains. Certainly, though, the issue holds a lot of risk for Bush as well.BobG said:
Well, I didn't say a majority/plurality - I just meant that there is little swing potential in that issue.
Well, that's the thing - with the election coming up, they'll need to talk about it more if they want it to be an issue. And like last time, talking but saying nothing will hurt them.
Well, there are lots of ways to look at that, tooo - Clinton failed to stop a rising star in the terrrist world, and 9/11 was soon enough after Bush took office that Clinton must share the blame.
russ waters said:
Clearly. But energy policy in the US took a wrong turn in 1979. Though it won't help him in this campaign, Bush may well be remembered as the President who put energy policy back on track by restarting the nuclear program. And I think you overestimate the level of blame people will throw on Bush for gas prices. Frankly, my confidence in Democrats' understanding of economics is pretty thin, but many people DO understand the causal relationship between supply and demand. With Katrina a year ago and gas prices dropping now, I don't think Dems will be able to profit from that issue.SOS2008 said:
Sure, but so what? Without some reality to sink their teeth into, how will the Democrats be able to convince the votors that that is a real problem? To a lot of people it is an irrelevancy.
People keep bringing that up, but have you looked at the numbers? Neither you nor I are old enough to even remember the last time the US had an inflation problem. Bringing it up can only hurt the Democratic party.
I find it interesting that Democrats choose to draw conclusions about what facts should be when there is data available that tells you how things are. You think that people shouldn't be able to buy houses, but the fact is that they can.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the 2005 income numbers came out last week: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h03ar.html
The minimum wage quite correctly was/has never meant to be a living wage. Regardless, I renew my prediction that the Republicans will pass a minimum wage increase in the next two months, making it impossible for the Democrats to use the issue.
Uh, didn't you just agree with me (well, sort of - you partially missed my point)? Yes, most Americans will not see the games the Republicans are playing.
Actually, you misinterpret my feelings on that. I'm not proud, I'm smug, because Democrats are losing their own game. I'd much prefer a country where the rightful winner of the 2000 election (John McCain) was in power, but for now I'm fine with one where Democrats consistently shoot themselves in the foot.
The destruction of the world would pretty badly hurt a capitalist, so no, that can't be a capitalist trait. I see it as a trait of ideologues - from both sides. But right now, the idealogues in the Democratic party are doing more harm to their party than the ones in the Republican party.
Then someone screwed up badly when they opened his appearance at the DNC with a 20 foot poster of him in his uniform. In addition to that, as I've discussed in other threads and above, the PACS do more harm than good to the party because they can't see past their own ideology. The SBV existed a much as anything else, as a response to MoveOn's (among others) ongoing attacks on Bush's service record.
I'm not sure where you were during the campaign, but the attacks on Bush's service record started long before anyone ever heard of the SBV. Heck, Bush's service record was an issue in 2000 as well. I'm guessing the PACs simply didn't realize they didn't have the same leverage (ie, the same candidate) in 2004 as they did in 2000.
It is clear from his activity level prior to 9/11 that Bin Laden's star was on the rise before the invasion of Afghanistan, peaking at 9/11, not long after Clinton left office. Bush didn't allow Bin Laden to become who he is today: Clinton did. Clinton made no meaninful response to multiple attacks, which is a great prestige builder for a terrorist.selfAdjoint said: