Substitute “Democratic” for each instance of “Republican” in the above and I agree wholeheartedly.
Reagan would be way too liberal to pass movement conservatives’ litmus tests today.
So, I guess, Romney. Or Huntsman. Anybody too liberal to have a prayer of getting the nomination.
How’s all that working out for Wisconsin voters, exactly?
Okay, I’m ignoring it.
Why do I bring this up? Because the biggest problem the Republicans have is they refuse to recognize a defeat when it happens. They just get all huffy and explain why that election didn’t count and then ignore it. By doing this, they create the illusion in their heads that they never lose. This means they never learn anything from their defeats. And that means that they never fix any problems and then they lose another election.
Democrats are getting smarter. They know when they lose (helped along by the Republicans rubbing their face in it) and they look at the defeat. They learn from it and they figure out ways to make sure they do better next time.
Again, why do I bring this up? Because it’s very relevant to the 2012 election. As several people, including myself, have said Obama is a very vulnerable President. But he’s probably going to get re-elected because the Republicans seem hellbent on handing him the election by choosing the worst possible strategy.
'Cause if Bush hadn’t gotten us stuck there, Obama couldn’t have withdrawn. Another triumph for W!
Powerful lot of learning they did last November that doesn’t seem to have helped much, not to mention Teddy’s senate seat…
Your post is my cite.
While you’re doing a victory dance over the elections you won, some Democrat is studying the election to see why he lost them.
Look at the OP. All he wants to do is talk about 1980 and predict that Obama is going to lose just like Jimmy Carter did. That’s not going to help him. What he should be doing is looking at 1996 and trying to figure out why Bill Clinton won.
Yeah, I agree. Despite everything, the Democrats have STILL not learned to stick to their guns, get down in the mud, and beat the asshole/idiot wing of the Republican party (aka “the Tea Party”) at their own evil game.
What’s even MORE tragic? The remaining sane wing of the Republican party selling out to the Tea Party instead of standing up and kicking them back into the gutter of history where they belong.
seems they need to study a little harder
Yet New York did not go Republican in '02 or '04 when the memories of 9-11 were far frehser. Not to mention that the majority of New York residents support the Ground Zero Mosque.
this x 2
Koxinga: It’s true that it ain’t really over until the fat lady sings. But c’mon, the Republican primary candidates look like contestants in a stupid contest. People may be upset with Obama and he may look vulnerable right now, but elections are a relative affair and the pub candidates all look far more vulnerable. They’re going to oppose the jobs bill on the premise that tax cuts for the rich are more important than jobs, or the deficit, or tax cuts for the working poor- after spending three years yelling about the economy. And their anti-intellectualism provides an endless list of demonstrably false statements from them all. And so on- they’re chumps.
The congressional races, as the pubs in this thread seem to agree, are an area where the dems need to worry. It is demonstrated that pubs can take seats in those cases. I stand by what I said. The presidential election will go to Obama practically guaranteed. The dems would be wise not to take their eyes off the ball of the smaller elections.
Do you think “studying” how the 1998 Yankees played will magically propel, say, the Pittsburgh Pirates to the playoffs this year? Good luck.
Read for context–he’s saying **the OP **should study Clinton 1996.
Obama has no apparent need for studying, based on the jokers the Pubs have contending for the presidency.
so glad you think so…
Oh, I see. So it’s the baseball fan who should study the record of the ‘98 Yankees, in order to understand the Pirates’ path to the pennant this year. Because the Pirates themselves need no schooling.
That makes much more sense, thanks.
Do you think putting up a banner proclaiming the Pirates won the 1979 World Series will take them to the playoffs this year?
Read the OP. He’s saying Obama is finished. Why? Because we beat Jimmy Carter in 1980! Hoorah!
Compared to that, I think that yes, going to New York’s 23rd and 26th Congressional Districts - and the 9th - and asking the voters there why they crossed traditional party lines in the last election would be a good idea. Maybe hit a few other districts as well.
Because, guess what, sometime in the next fourteen month you’ve got to convince six million voters to change parties from the last Presidential election. So you might want to start working on a plan that isn’t dependent on Ronald Reagan being your candidate.
Do you guys seriously not remember all the Pubbie crowing in 1994-1995? This feels exactly the same–you have a decent mid-term congressional win, nothing useful to show for it, and a bunch of uncharismatic smacktards in your primary field–at least some of whom are likely to spoiler as a 3rd-party candidate.
Carter’s special forces missions didn’t work out.
So far for Obama, the special forces have got the job done.
Why do people never remember the Iranian Hostage Crisis when talking about Jimmy Carter’s defeat? You had this relentless nightly pounding about how ineffective he was being. “Day 412” anyone? Anyone? Carter basically didn’t campaign. He stayed in DC working this problem. Of course some people think the Iranians gave up the hostages minutes after Reagan was elected because 'them Iranians were scert of Ronnie." But it was actually Carter who got them home. The Iranians just held them up to give Carter one last “fuck you!”
Now not only has Obama showed the world how to negotiate with Pirates but he ordered the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. He didn’t pull back troops when OBL was trapped on a mountain like GWB did. Nope. He fucking got the job done.