Perhaps you could try addressing a point instead of partisan spewage.
Obama isn’t a Republican. The point, once again, is that *you *can’t beat her.
You know as well as anyone what you will try to use, and it isn’t that. :rolleyes:
But the guys you keep naming as your *best *are the likes of Christie and Jindal. You’re funny, and not in the good way, either.
Christie and Jindal.
If you could point out what that is, other than their not being Republicans, you might not get as much laughter.
Now you’re just getting sad.
No, you don’t. You cheer for the other ones. Your claim is based on partisan bluster, but is in opposition to the facts.
That doesn’t change election to election, but generation to generation. “The party of fiscal conservatism and good government” is the one you oppose for the sake of opposition.
Oh, definitely, but that wasn’t the point. I’m sure McCain could have used GWB to turn out the evangelical vote, but he still had to overcome GWB’s unpopularity and fell short.
It’s not the talent of the candidate that matters, it’s the talent of the campaign manager. You don’t think the GOP has more Lee Atwaters and Karl Roves? The GOP wasn’t only successful because of oppo research, which admittedly is useless against Clinton. They were successful because they also pushed a clear message whereas the Democrat often pushed a muddled message. Clinton had no clear 2008 narrative. Obama did. Will she find on in 2016? IT won’t be “change”.
IT’s the difference between John Kerry and Michael Dukakis and Barack Obama. Obama brought out new voters. Kerry and Dukakis didn’t.
I’ve rarely heard of a candidate getting defeated just because he said some ridiculous things some time ago. Actually, never.
The media narrative is on my side on this one, as is public opinion. If you are privy to some higher truth, it’s high time you started explaining it rather than just denying what most people have already figured out.
You think McCain lost because the evangelicals didn’t turn out? Really?
A moment ago you were telling us about celebrities.
If you meant dishonest, ruthless, power-is-everything people, then yes, certainly. That’s *all *you have.
“No” is a clear message that appeals to the intellectually lazy or overwhelmed, “Here’s just a few of the many things we need to accomplish” can seem muddled to them, yes.
Is that why Jindal seems so attractive to you?
There is not going to be a shortage of your guys saying ridiculous things.
In Hannityland, maybe so. But you do need to change the channel once in a while.
Yeah, the NY Times, Washington Post, Chris MAtthews, Leon Panetta, Robert Gibson, that’s the vast right wing conspiracy for you.
Seriously, both of you. Get off this board. I don’t mean that in the “Go away” way, but the “expand your horizons” way. Your ignorance is not being fought by being primarily around people who believe as you do, and it’s obvious you aren’t seeking out even mainstream news sources if you’ve missed the fact that both the media and the public regard the President as incompetent and dishonest.
Actually, you probably aren’t reading much of the liberal media either for that matter. SDMB might be the last place where the President is still regarded as a good President.
If it’s ignorance, it’s certainly not being fought by you, is it?
That’s a fact, huh?
And you’re a great American!
No, nobody’s leaving the board, the way *you *did after the last election in which you were spewing the same sort of nonsense you are today. You can project all you want, but that doesn’t constitute fighting ignorance, ignorance like claiming the party of opposition and shutdowns is the party of “fiscal responsibility and good government”.
So what? People a lot better than I have written extensively about the administration’s competence and honesty issues, and they aren’t all conservatives.
Or perhaps you think him being off the campaign trail is just because he’s so darn busy.
Anyway, some polling data, since maybe data will fight your ignorance:
Is honest and trustworty: 47-51 against
Can effectively manage the government: 39-60 against
Now poll data does not prove that the President is incompetent and dishonest, but given the numerous examples of both cited again and again and which have made headline news(which I’m sure even you didn’t miss, you had to have accidentally turned on CNN or seen a NY Times headline somewhere), I think at this point the burden is on those who disagree to explain why they think that judgment against the President is wrong.
Clinton will be portrayed as Obama’s third term, to which your response was to wonder what’s wrong with that. It’s now been explained to you.
Now if you’re shifting your argument to Obama NOT being a factor in 2016, well, a buttload of history argues against that as well. Hillary Clinton can only wish she was as popular as John McCain was in 2000 and 2004. He could have been President easily if he’d been the general election nominee in either of those years. He was so popular the Democrats wanted him as their VP nominee in 2004.
But Bush was just too much weight on his shoulders by 2008. Clinton faces the same headwinds, except she’s never been as popular as JOhn McCain was at his peak.
Yes, you’ll try, and to whatever extent that works, it will *help *her. But your comments about Obama’s alleged unpopularity (you never compare it to your own team’s, notably) are still irrelevant partisan spewage.
Oh dear, you don’t know the difference between asserting and explaining, do you?
Her approvals have been in the 60% range for a long time. You have no one who could even dream of that.
The real issue is that no party can hold the presidency for more than 8-16 years nowadays, max. The desire for variety kicks in and voters want change.
It will help her? Wow. As for comparing popularity, how is the relative unpopularity of the Republican party helping the Democrats right now? Oh, it’s helping, it just means that instead of losing 12 seats they are only losing 7-8. So Clinton will lose by 3 instead of 10(not an official adaher prediction).
I gave you poll data. That goes just a big beyond mere assertion.
It’s not 60% now, and McCain was even more popular.
Are you seriously this unaware of the relative popularity of your candidates?
The most recent poll had her down to 55%. Her overall +/- is +19.
That’s a pretty broad statement. If you’re referring to my predictions, I’ve made exactly one. I’ve made a few more about 2014. I even started a thread about it. If you’ve got balls, add your predictions.
Your argument is childish. It almost seems like you’re clutching yourself, reassuring yourself that everything will be okay because adaher is the one who predicted doom, and he’s never right.
More delusion. 2004 was also a legitimate win. Even if I gave you Ohio, Kerry fell short by 3 million votes, plus we have to also revisit Wisconsin, which went for Kerry and also had irregularities. And we’re also looking at very small sample sizes here. Exactly three Democrats have won Presidential elections since 1988: Clinton, Gore, Obama. Aside from Hillary Clinton, do the hopefuls in 2014 look more like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, or more like John Kerry? And guess what the two Democrats aside from Gore had in common? They succeeded, and heavily ran against, an unpopular GOP incumbent. Gore attempted to succeed a popular Democratic incumbent and still made it just too damn close. Hillary Clinton won’t be running to succeed her 60% approval rating husband. She’ll be running to succeed Mr. 40% instead. If she succeeds, she’ll have bucked history in more ways than just being the first female President.
Oh wait, I forgot, the American public loves Barack Obama and that will reflect well on Mrs. Clinton. Sorry, I wasn’t accounting for the World According to Elvis.
Actually, I gave 2000 to Gore as a win. Popular vote may not be how our elections are decided, but it does matter, as it’s an indication of support and can predict where things are headed in the future. The fact that Democrats have won the popular vote in what, 5 out of the last 6 elections? Is very significant. But in 2004, they didn’t. If the GOP wins by 3 million votes in 2016, 95% chance they win the election.
basically, the goal for Democrats in 2016 will be to try to turn out the same voters who voted in 2012. The Republicans will be trying to match their 2004 performance. Both have a plausible path towards accomplishing that, although if Obama is still stuck at 40% approval, much as in 2014 the Republicans will have the easier path. Listen to the wisdom of your President: his name doesn’t have to be on the ballot for him to be what an election is about, and that applies to 2016 just like it applies to 2014.
And let’s keep in mind a very unpleasant fact for Democrats: In the Obama era, they have failed to turn out in every single non-Presidential election. If 2014 shows a continuance of that trend, then it means one of two things, one bad, the other catastrophic:
Democrats don’t come out for non-Presidential elections, which means that a majority of state governments will be Republican for the forseeable future, and that they will never be able to hold Congress for more than two years.
Democrats don’t come out if Obama is not on the ballot, which means they are screwed until they find the next Obama. Remember that as recently as 2004, Democrats were wondering just why they couldn’t win anything. Bush’s unpopularity and Obama’s star power changed all that, but both factors are very temporary conditions. The Democrats have not yet proved that they can win without major breaks going their way. 2016 will either prove that they can win under difficult circumstances, or it will prove that despite their fond wishes of demographic dominance, for the time being they are utterly screwed.
You’re funny, and not in the good way, either.
