(Cynical snort)
A “possibility”, you say?
-Joe
As opposed to November 2004, November 2002, and November 2000? My snarky three beats your snarky one.
Now, now. I would like to assume that the Republican nominee is going to be a man of honor and will take the high road in the campaign. For the most part I think Ford, Dole, and Reagan did that so it isn’t unthinkable.
That’s so sweet. Want to put money on it?
It’s been demonstrated to be extremely effective. You’re going to see “Black Activists for Truth”, “New York Carpetbaggers for Truth”, or whatever else happens to ‘apply’ to the Dem candidate.
-Joe
Of course not! I fully expect to be proven wrong, but we have to admit the possibility that the nominee and his staff will not be cut from the Bush-Cheney-Rove cloth.
I think it’s unlikely they will be cut from that cloth - at least not openly.
Thing is, all candidates are cut from the same “want to win” cloth. They won’t leave a handy shiv laying unused once things get nasty.
-Joe
I’m thinking we’ve reached the point where it would energize the **pro-**gay-rights folks more.
But it’s a moot question. Such a ruling from this SCOTUS? 
Not necessarily the Supremes. An activist lower court asserting a right to gay marriage would undoubtedly recharge the Christian Right.
The problem is that middle 20% of voters. The true undecideds. It’s a real battle to win them over. They are receptive to what either side has to offer but for some of them–once they are alone in the voting booth and don’t have to explain or justify their decision to anyone-- the straw that breaks the camel’s back could be race or gender. They might not even be overtly racist or sexist. They just may find themselves unwilling or unable to cast that vote. People don’t usually have such personal mental hand-wringing over Breck girls.
It’s not the effect Gore’s comments will have on Canadians or even on American voters. I just noticed when I was reading the article that for the first time (that I know of) Gore is speaking so freely and so injudiciously that he simply doesn’t care how his comments might affect a run at the White House. Therefore, he is definitely (IMO) not going to run.
The Republicans strategy for the past 8 yrs has been that only 7% of the voters are actually swing voters and that they’re irrelevant compared to motivating the base. It seems to have worked for them. The Dems should motivate their base and forget about swing voters. And by motivate, all I mean is that they actually have to get them into the voting booths on election day. For some reason, this has been difficult for them to do.
In any case, either Clinton or Obama will be on the ticket, so we’ll so who’s right then, I guess.
Interesting. Thank you for the rather clear debate here… I had posted, and then immediately regretted it as I figured it would dissolve into partisan bickering, but that hasn’t seemed to have happend.
Yeah, but we can counter with Red October Veterans for Truth.
Well, each of those would be good for motivating a different segment of the Dem base.
Nah, that happened in '04. The novelty’s worn off.
The Pubbie base is intrinsically different than the Dem base. If nothing else the fact that the Pubbie base has stood by Bush even as his support among the unaffiliated has dropped to as low as Democratic approval of him proves that. That core views the enemy not as poverty, suffering, or even those dang Ay-rabs, but as the evil Democrats. For that core the fact that their elected mouthpiece has failed as a conservative means less than how bad the Dems would be.
Democrats are not usually quite so partisan. They are quite willing to tear apart their own representatives if they fail to endorse any particular belief core to them as an individual. They may not be any more heterogenous in beliefs than the Pubbies but they are less likely to believe in “my candidate, right or wrong.” You try to identify an issue to motivate the core Democrat and you lose lots of other Democrats along the way. Dems need the middle to win. And they need disgusted Pubbies to sit one out some too.
As to gender or complexion … much less important than feeling that the candidate has values that they identify with and that they believe that the candidate really has them. That’s why Bush keeps his support: the core believes that he believes as they believe. (The middle doesn’t.)
To the op: depends on who hypothetically wins and how they govern, doesn’t it? A Guilinani win may not lead to the Supreme catestrophe and a strong Congress (along with the moderation of position needed to take a general election) may still force his hand on Iraq. McCain is true Conservative but, knowing that he is a single termer, would feel no obligation to kowtow to the Religious nutjobs. His Litmus test might be more campaign reform than abortion. And so on down the line. None of the likely Republican candidates are as likely to play as partisan or as stupidly as Bushco has. Nor are any as likely to play as Rovianly dirty.
I can see a Pubbie win, and if it is Guiliani vs HRC I might even want it.
I’m confused. Emmanuel is widely creditted with masterminding the strategy that brought the Dems to victory this Congessional cycle. He fixated the attention away from the usual center vs left sniping and helped paint the Dems as “agents of change.” They won to no small extent because they did run the campaign he wanted them to run.
As to Rahm in the next Presidential cycle … he is reported to be hiding under his desk. He has worked with Obama before, and help guide him to victory. Obama is also of his state. But the Clintons got him on the national stage and a year before Obama was declared as in the race Rahm had pledged support to HRC.
But no question, he’ll be an asset to either one in the general.
Achh, sorry for the multiposting but …
as to the claim that
well, Pew Research has an interesting analysis of that. Basically, you can trust the polls to reflect what people will do because in other recent Black/White election match-ups they’ve been pretty much spot on.
In other news latest polling shows Obama in the lead over Clinton for the first, but I am sure not the last, time:
And he’s even doing well among Blacks! 
I’ll stop hijacking now.
Sorry.
I know this is the CW, and I’ve heard it all before. I’m disputing it. More people in this country identify Dem, lean Dem, and would vote Dem…if they actually went to the voting booth. That’s the problem. Not triangulating towards the center. How much more center are Dem candidates supposed to get? No matter what they do, they’ll be painted as liberals by the Republicans and the media. Either that, or the Republicans and the media will focus on trivia (Gore’s wearing Earth tones) or out and out fabricate stuff (Gore claimed he invented the internet, Kerry said “whom amongst us doesn’t love NASCAR”). That’s what I’m saying. No matter who the Dems nominate, this kind of crap is going to be what gets discussed.
I mean, Obama is definitely on the liberal side of things. The Republicans could skewer him on the issues alone. But instead, we’re getting fake stories about how he went to a Madrassa as a child or repeated references to his middle name. How is he supposed to triangulate his middle name?
Those people who voted for Bush because “they could sit down and drink a beer with him” are concerned about values and issues? They’re concerned with trivia (although from what I hear, you could actually drink a beer with Bush nowadays).
HRC seems to be one of the more conservative of the Dem crop. Not enough triangulation for you?
The beer test is about values. It is the shorthand way to ask if you identify with this person, if you feel comfortable with who (s)he is, do you feel that you have things in common with this person … not issues, values.
And I think that you misunderstand me. I am certainly not proposing pandering to what is, at any particular point in time, percieved as the middle (along the lines of HRC’s style). I am saying that you have a candidate articulate enough to help the middle see that these values actually are their values, even if they hadn’t realized it yet. He or she is just better at saying it. That leadership does not occur by pandering to any segment of the left either. And the broad population of potential Democratic voters won’t be motivated (like Pubbies sometimes are) to come out exclusively to prevent a win by the evil other side. They need to have someone they are voting for. And that they needs to include the middle. Interestingly those poll numbers bear this out. Obama is increasingly seen as more liberal and Clinton as more moderate overall while his poll numbers among independents climb dramatically. You can be liberal and reach to the middle because the middle is more liberal than especially they think. They just don’t know it yet.