Zogby: Dems lost in 2004 because of poor war position ...

[welshTerrier2]

and yes, i'll add a whole bunch of election fraud too ... but Zogby has the data and they indicate the Dems' failure to challenge bush on the war killed us in 2004 ...

and the Dems will not win with their current "fuzzy Iraq logic" either ... he sees the Lamont-Lieberman race as having major repercussions about the Dems' war position ...

Dems need to come out strongly and clearly against the war or they will lose a very significant chunk of their base ...

source: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0807-31.htm

I have stated on The Huffington Post several times that the Democrats will have a tough time convincing that they are ready to take back control of Congress without offering any clarity on the Iraq War. Lieberman has been patently clear on Iraq but way out of the mainstream of his party's own voters. Clinton as well runs the risk of having her landslide victory in New York tainted by a below-expectations showing because New York liberal Democrats want her to be against the war.

Let's just look at the numbers from my most recent national poll (July 21). Overall, only 36% of likely voters told us that they agree that the war in Iraq has been "worth the loss of American lives", while 57% disagree. But the partisan splits are more revealing: only 16% of the Democrats polled said the war has been worth while 82% disagree and only 26% of Independents agree the war has been worth it while 72% disagree. On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it, while 23% disagree. The war has been the principal cause of the nation's polarization in the past three years. The polling evidence shows the degree to which Iraq has become a Republican war. And these latest numbers are also noteworthy in that they show that about one in four Republicans have now pretty much given up on the war.

All of which is to suggest that Democratic candidates will now probably be emboldened to take a stronger stance against the war. If principle doesn't win the day, at least the polling numbers are pretty clear what their base wants. Indeed, the polling numbers were pretty clear what Democrats and Independents wanted in 2004 - and the fact that they didn't receive the opposition to the war they were looking for from their standard-bearers is the main reason that they lost both the Presidency and did not pick up seats in either house of Congress. <skip>

[mtnsnake]

1. Yup, it was 2 contestants trying to prove whod be the better war president

instead of who would be the better president, period. Never again can we let ourselves be suckered into a contest for Best Killer of Terrorists.

[Journeyman]

6. I figured we lost it when Kerry "reported for duty" . . .

and gave that idiotic salute at the Convention.

We don't elect a "Commander in Chief;" we elect a President who functions, when necessary, as Commander in Chief.

[mtnsnake]

10. How corny was that

I couldn't agree with you more.

[PassingFair]

21. Nor I with you....

My heart SANK when he saluted like that.

:puke:

[Mabus]

73. I was at a delegate party at the Paradise Cafe (?)

near/in Boston. It was hosted by the Kucinich delegates. Kucinich was supposed to be there to watch with us but at the last minute he was asked to be on stage with Kerry and the rest of the 2004 Democratic field of candidates. To his credit, he rushed over there to hang out with everyone after he did his part.

Anyway, you should have heard the combination of groans and laughter that filled the place when Kerry said that. I was sitting next to an Edwards alternate, she looked at me and said, "we are so fucked", a sentiment to which everyone around us nodded in agreement. I was a delegate but I turned my credentials over to my alternate. She was running for office and I thought she should be able to say that she voted for Kerry at the DNC in her campaign.

[GreenArrow]

54. we lost it when Kerry chose Edwards as running mate

Why pick (A) another Senator and (B) another Senator with a pro-war position? As if that was not bad enough, the Kerry people then prevented any anti-war language from being added to the party platform, even though a substantial number -- 95% -- of delgates at the DNC supported an anti-war plank.

[WildEyedLiberal]

43. Because Hillary has been so outspoken in her opposition of the war

She's even called for withdrawing the troops!

Oh... wait.... never mind.

[longship]

2. Lamont needs to win -- BIG

Please Ned. Do it.
Please Connecticut. Vote for Ned!!!

[LittleClarkie]

3. Then again, Zogby thought Kerry would win big in 2004

So, well, I'm not sure how much I can trust his numbers, really. He lost some credibility two years ago with his predictions.

[welshTerrier2]

4. well, perhaps ...

i think he has tons of credibility ... i would doubt him only if i didn't think significant election fraud occurred ...

[Gloria]

5. Imagine that...I'm part of a CHUNK.....

[LittleClarkie]

8. I've always been quite chunky, meself

Ever since I was a wee tot.

[wisteria]

7. I disagree with Zogby on the point of the war position in 04.

I contend the American public was not ready for any position other than careful advancement of the status quo and our safety and security. An anti-war candidate would not have won. It is easy to look back after nearly two years and see how things have worsened, and now say another position would have netted us a win. Democrats voted for Senator Kerry, and The Senator tried to draw a line between, a right way and a wrong way to wage a war the Democrats didn't want. The Bin Laden tapes, the security warnings, fraud,and the lies all played a roll in our loss.

[mike_c]

9. I've been saying that since... 2004....

Sheesh. Glad to see some hard data emerging, however. Dems need to offer ALTERNATIVE positions, not different flavors of repig issues. American doesn't want different people who say they can do the same things better-- America wants leaders who can articulate different directions entirely.

[welshTerrier2]

11. Lieberman's problems have been heard "round the world"

i have no idea what impact a Lamont win will have ... it sounds like Zogby expects the Dems to start moving a bit left and getting their act together on the war ... i'm not exactly confident he's right about that ... i think it would be easy to write-off Lieberman as a polar extreme ... maybe the rest will still feel safe squirreled away with their status quo ...

the nightmare scenario for the party would be a Lieberman win in the primary ... if that happens, all hell MIGHT break loose ... i think a Lamont loss might just energize the party's left wing more than a Lamont win ... with a Lamont win, we get token movement from the rest of the party on the war ... with a Lamont loss, we go back to our NOT REPRESENTED status ... the latter is a far more dangerous situation ...

and i don't agree with those who still think the Dems needed to lay low in 2004 because the war and security issue was "untouchable" ... i think Dems were seen as spineless and without a clear position ... vagueness has never been a politically strong message ...

[ProSense]

12. Zogby is full of BS because that's not what his polls showed

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15) shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected – compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters – 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry’s lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=825

Released: August 15, 2004
Kerry Favored Over Bush 47%-43% In Multi-Candidate Race; Voters With Passports Give Kerry 58%-35% Edge; Candidates in Dead Heat Among Investors; New Zogby America Poll Reveals

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is favored over President George W. Bush (47%-43%) among likely voters when Ralph Nader, Libertarian, Constitution and Green Party presidential candidates are factored into the 2004 presidential race, according to a new Zogby America poll. The telephone poll of 1011 likely voters was conducted Thursday through Saturday (August 12-14, 2004). Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.1.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=851

Are they going to claim now that not only the exit polls were wrong, but also the polls throughout the campaign? Geez! Wise up!

[welshTerrier2]

14. i'll let Zogby make his own case ...

as for your "Geez, Wise Up!", your numbers are a bit disingenuous ... you're citing polls from May, 2004? how about something a little closer to the election? i have no idea what the election polls showed on the war issue but citing one from May is nonsense ...

and even what you posted showed a significant gain in importance for the war ... it jumped from 11% to 20% in a couple of months and was just a little behind the economy as the number one issue ...

and the poll you cited doesn't really even address the issue at all ... if one were maintaining that the Dems, not just Kerry but the Congress too, were seen as spineless and vague, that may have killed us ... where's your polling data on that?

[ProSense]

17. August is May?

Yes there was an 11% to 20% jump and Kerry had the edge. What's your point?

Released: October 30, 2004

...the Senator holds big leads among those who cite education (51%-36%), the war in Iraq (51%-39%), and health care (52%-38%).

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=877

Zogby predicts Kerry victory

Utica pollster John Zogby said polling results indicate Sen. John Kerry will defeat President Bush in today's election.

"I think we're looking at a Kerry victory," Zogby said Monday night.

Zogby expects a very large turnout among young voters, with at least 55 percent voting in today's election.

Among voters ages 18 to 29, polls indicate that 0 percent are undecided, Zogby said. He believes that group will give Kerry the edge.

Kerry will get 64 percent of those votes followed by Bush with 35 percent and third-party candidate Ralph Nader with just 1 percent, Zogby said.

(11/2/2004)
- The Observer Dispatch
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10289

Claiming that every Democrat is spineless and vague is nonsense. The media distorted the war, too many voters bought it, and too many voters still ignore that the GOP suppressed the vote and tampered with the election.

[blm]

13. So now Zogby is changing his certainty from before and after the election

to a story that fits the storyline he's using NOW?

That's pretty odd for Zogby.

He's playing to internet and checking his accuracy at the door. Kerry articulated a clear choice when it comes to military matters. He would do all the work necessary as president to AVOID war and respect it as a choice of LAST RESORT. Bush had the opposite stance.

[welshTerrier2]

15. uh oh ... the Kerry police ...

Kerry articulated a clear choice?

it's interesting to see you state that as a "matter of fact" ... sounds kind of like your opinion to me ... Kerry suggested a change in tactics but little more ... he did not say bush's objectives in Iraq were either wrong or unachievable ...

and Kerry had the "opposite stance" from bush on the war? no sale here ... and no, i don't intend to go around in circles with you on the issue for the billionth time ...

btw, this thread is not specifically about Kerry at all ... it's about the perceived position of the Democratic Party ...

[blm]

16. The ACCURACY police - and you're in violation. Don't change my words.

I said this and it is TRUE -

>>
Kerry articulated a clear choice when it comes to military matters. He would do all the work necessary as president to AVOID war and respect it as a choiuce of LAST RESORT. Bush had the opposite stance.
>>

Kerry has had that stance for over 30 years in reagrd to war and has not budged. Is his approach to war like yours or Bush's?

You have to alter my sentence to fit your reply, just as Zogby is changing his story from back then to fit the thrust of his argument now. He shouldn't - he is RIGHT about both, and shouldn't act wrong about his earlier stance to fit the argument he's making about 2006.

[welshTerrier2]

19. i won't argue sentence structure

if i misunderstood your intent, i stand corrected ...

and i then will state, independent of your post, that Kerry did not have an "opposite stance" to bush on the war ... your post seems to have focussed on the pre-war ... in November, 2004, with the exception of tactical differences, there was no presidential candidate from either major party calling for an end to the war ... so much for choice ...

and none of this addresses what i construed Zogby's point to be ... arguing that Kerry said this and Kerry said that is really not the point at all ... i believe Zogby's point was that the voters perceived the Democrats as "going along" on the war and i believe he concluded that this hurt the Democrats with their own base and with independents ... i'm not a mind reader; that's my interpretation of what Zogby meant ...

[blm]

39. There was no call to pull out in Nov 2004, BEFORE the Iraqis had a chance

to their first vote to form a government.

Zogby would have declared ANY candidate out of their mind in Nov 2004 to be calling for immediate end of military action in Iraq before the country even had its first vote. He would have joined with 70% of this country and 99% of the media who would have screamed how irresponsible it was for the Dem nominee to DOOM Iraqi elections one month before the first vote is taken and before any Iraqi government is given the chance to form into an effective body.

Even Kucinich wouldn't have pulled out immediately - he always stressed that bringing in the UN and NATO for stabilization help so we COULD begin withdrawal, just as Kerry and others maintained, too.

People need to deal with the reality at that time, pre-Iraqi elections, and the reality of civil war now. The situations are NOT interchangeable.

To say they are is intellectually dishonest.

[ProSense]

18. Stop misrepresenting the facts!

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646640.shtml

You are the one making a billion circles!

[welshTerrier2]

20. gee, it's amazing that posts perceived to be critical of Kerry

are always wrong ... they always haven't read the speeches ... they always have a personal dislike for Kerry ... they are always "lefty freepers" ...

it's a good thing Kerry supporters are always right or we'd never know the truth ...

[ProSense]

22. You said he didn't say something when he did!

You want me to pretend he didn't say it?

[welshTerrier2]

23. really?

what did i deny that Kerry said?

on edit: edited for clarity ...

[ProSense]

24. Reread your post! n/t

[welshTerrier2]

25. i did ...

i don't see myself denying anything that Kerry said ... in fact, i don't see myself making any reference at all to anything that Kerry said ...

[ProSense]

26. Let me help you out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2763184&mesg_id=2763375

[welshTerrier2]

29. doesn't help at all ...

i reread my post ... i see no reference to any specific statement that Kerry made ...

and the post i was responding to has been edited after i made my response so it's even more difficult to clarify any of this ...

if you would like to discuss this in greater detail, you'll have to provide the details ... telling me to reread my post and then posting a link to it just has us going around in circles ...

[ProSense]

30. Sorry, I cannot help you to understand your own post! n/t

[welshTerrier2]

32. fine ...

see ya ...

sorry i didn't measure up to your superior standards ...

[wisteria]

40. You mention 04, and the Pres. election and it becomes about kerry.

Oh, and Senator kerry did say, it was the wrong war at the wrong time. I think that clearly states his position. WRONG WAR!
I never had any problem understanding or following Kerry's position on the war. We were lead into this war by the opposition, we have broken the country, and now we have a duty to get it right and try and fix it.
Frankly, I thought this was a noble position to take. Pulling out without trying to get it right, without giving it a chance to work and helping the Iraqi's to succeed and create a stable government, was just dangerous and wrong in 2004.

[welshTerrier2]

42. la la land ...

even today, a majority of Dems don't think the Dems have an Iraq strategy ... do you actually believe they thought Kerry and the Democratic Congress had one in 2004 but that it got lost somehow?

this thread is about the perception of the electorate ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

44. Gee don't you think maybe THE MEDIA NOT REPORTING THEIR PLANS

MIGHT BE why "people" don't think Democrats have a "plan"?

I don't really care if Kerry/Feingold isn't the magic-wand waving put-em-all-on-a-plane-tomorrow naivete YOU want, but it is STILL a PLAN, and the best one out there, and all your spinning won't change that.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. All you have are ad hominem attacks. Pathetic.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make in that pile of gibberish you just wrote, other than attacking me personally.

Guess what? When all you can manage is a haphazard jumble of words with no apparent punctuation, separated by a dozen ellipses, filled with personal attacks and vitriol, you have ZERO CREDIBILITY.

You never wanted an honest discussion, though, did you? Of course, I realize it's hard for you to actually debate someone else when you condradict yourself in THE SAME POST. You can't seem to decide if the media are a problem or not in the span of one paragraph. Yeah, you're a real fountain of credibility... heh.

[welshTerrier2]

50. isn't this an ad hominem attack?

pathetic!

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. Don't dish it out if you can't take it

All you can manage is a pathetic temper tantrum and calling me names, so don't expect any respect in return.

[ProSense]

52. "Kerry-Feingold is not the Democratic Party's 'strategy'"

Kerry-Feingold is the right strategy! It is the strategy more than half the country supports.

A majority of the country wants the Democrats back in power: http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

A majority of the country believes the Democrats will do a better job on Iraq: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You can sit and spin circles and quibble over imaginary BS all you want. These are the facts. It doesn't mean the Democrats can become complacent, and they are working (against media bias) to continue changing the perception of those whose perception is clouded by media spin.

[welshTerrier2]

55. read the WP poll

if you want to call the WP-ABC poll "imaginary BS", fine ...

[ProSense]

56. If you read it, you need to reread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2764027&mesg_id=2764027

[welshTerrier2]

57. no, you reread it ...

here's the point: "Even a slight majority of Democrats say their party does not have an Iraq strategy."

[ProSense]

58. A slight majority (all voters) trust the Democrats

"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[welshTerrier2]

59. yes, you keep posting that ...

the point is that having a non-position on Iraq is hurting the party ... it doesn't mean that it is causing the Democrats to poll weaker than the republicans ...

added on edit: how do you think i would answer a poll if asked whether i prefer the Dems position or the republicans? i would say i prefer the Dems position ... i'm also not contributing to the DNC, DSCC or the DCCC ... they all help fund the campaigns of candidates who keep voting for more war funding ... the point isn't whether you agree with my actions; the point is that i would be consistent with the poll results you posted AND the statement that the Dems vague position on Iraq is hurting the party ...

[ProSense]

60. You seem to thing that has to do with the Democrats not having a plan

when it's the media's distortion. There is a difference, and the Democrats are working against the media's constant spin to change that.

[welshTerrier2]

61. you seem to think the majority Dem view is ALL the media's fault

do i think the media totally sucks? yes i do ... but i've seen the Bidens and the Schumers and a handful or two of others on the biggie talk shows ... and millions watch C-Span and hear directly from Democrats ...

and many of us receive all kinds of email directly from the party and speak to our family members and other Democrats ...

you can't have it both ways here ... first you argue that voters are supporting Democrats on Iraq over republicans and then you want to argue Democrats hold the wrong views about Dem strategy on Iraq because the media are duping them ...

the view i have is that a strong majority has had it with the republicans ... the republicans have been in charge and made a hideous mess of Iraq ... the poll you keep citing reflects that ... but the WP poll ALSO cites that the Dem position, or non-position, is very weak on Iraq ... the two polls ARE NOT mutually exclusive ...

[ProSense]

63. Americans do support Democrats over Repubs, and the media is still biased

Media bias can shape perception. Obviously there are some independents to swing, but the overwhelming majority of Democrats and a significant majority of Independents want the Democrats to take back the Congress.

The 56% of American who want a timetable, will support Kerry-Feingold.

[welshTerrier2]

64. will support or would support?

i don't like Kerry-Feingold at all ... but that is not the point here ...

Kerry-Feingold is not the position of the Democratic Party ... right? so saying that a majority of Americans WOULD support it, while possibly true, does not address the issue of this post which is that a majority of Democrats do not think the Party has a position on Iraq and this has, and will, hurt the party ...

[ProSense]

65. The Democrats need to cut through

the media spin to make it clear they are presenting withdrawal options. They have time to change the perception of that slight majority, who by the polls aren't going to vote Republican anyway.

[Maven]

66. C'mon now, you're misrepresenting those polls.

They're not Kerry-specific.

[ProSense]

69. Where did I say the polls were Kerry specific? n/t

[Maven]

70. ...

Kerry-Feingold is the right strategy! It is the strategy more than half the country supports.

A majority of the country wants the Democrats back in power: http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm

A majority of the country believes the Democrats will do a better job on Iraq: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You implied that those polls indicate that "more than half the country" supports a Kerry-Feingold strategy. That is not what they show.

[ProSense]

72. Yes, Americans support a timetable!

Kerry-Feingold is the right strategy (only one with a timetable)! It is the strategy (timetable) more than half the country supports.

Poll shows 56% want a timetable:

"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?"

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[AtomicKitten]

27. I completely agree.

And it would be the smart thing to do since the majority of Americans think the war is a mistake.

America is looking for an opposition party to move us out of this insanity. Remember Clinton's famous saying - strong and wrong beats weak and right. Even if Dems are worried about being wrong coming out strong against the war - and of course they will not be wrong - strong beats weak any time.

[welshTerrier2]

31. Lamont

i'm not all that optimistic but i am still hopeful that a Lamont win will finally get the party off their arses regarding the war ...

the current position is a non-position ... we should withdraw some troops if it rains but not if it doesn't rain that hard unless you don't think we should and we'll have to see how the Iraqis feel about everything unless, of course, you don't think we should ... either way, i think we should definitely do something ... or not ...

[WildEyedLiberal]

46. That sounds like Bush's re-election motto

He campaigned on being "strong" and willing to "stick to his guns" and not reconsider his positions.

As Kerry said in the debates, "you can be certain, but you can also be certain and wrong."

I don't think emulating Bush's lack of concern for the nuance of something as intricate as foreign policy is smart or moral, and I think America is tired of arrogant stubbornness and wants a real leader who cares more about results than rhetoric.

[Maven]

68. ...

"I don't think emulating Bush's lack of concern for the nuance of something as intricate as foreign policy is smart or moral, and I think America is tired of arrogant stubbornness and wants a real leader who cares more about results than rhetoric."

Whereas this wasn't true in 2004? Stolen election aside, come on--this country is so drunk on rhetoric it can't even see the results. This is what gets me about all the citation of transcripts, and all the handwringing over what the position is or isn't--it's all correct, of course, it's just irrelevant in today's political climate.

[AtomicKitten]

71. You don't get the gist of what I'm saying.

I'm talking about the tone of the message, not the content. Of course, Democrats are concerned about the content and are all over the map now because of their trepidation in looking weak coming out against the war.

My point is that they need to pull up their socks and articulate a strong, coherent message, and it wouldn't hurt to do it in easily-digestible sound bytes to accommodate America's short attention span.

Please feel free to inquire if this hasn't better illuminated my original post.

[WildEyedLiberal]

76. I basically agree with that

But then we run into the problem we're seeing now, which is: whose strong coherent message are we articulating? I think Kerry/Feingold is the strongest plan on the war put forth by elected Dems, but the Dem leadership has either been blatantly antagonistic or apathetic about it. Frankly, the thing that disappoints me about the Democratic party is that there are too many egos and too many people who resent others taking the leadership role for there to be the kind of coordination your post suggests.

[leesa]

28. I agree. Dems needed to say loud and clear that the war was illegal

and immoral and that it needed to stop pronto because you don't continue illegal activities once you discover they are illegal.

Instead they played a mealy-mouthed game which said, 'I agree with the war but not with how it is being fought and I would bring in MORE troops.' Stupid and cowardly.

[welshTerrier2]

33. Zogby's intent ...

it seems to me that Zogby's intent with his statement is that the Dems lost votes, money and support from both their base and from Independents because, while the Dems were certainly critical of bush on tactics, voters did not see a substantial difference in the overall policy between the parties ...

i'm hopeful that Democrats will fare well this November even given that fact ... at this point, there may be such a strong anti-republican, anything's-better-than-this mentality that any change is good change ... in 2004, that may not have been the case ...

and absent a sharper position for 2008, it's anybody's guess ... the current Dem position is incredibly vague ... maybe that will all start changing after tomorrow ...

[sampsonblk]

34. I just hope we don't make this mistake again...

I think Zogby's 100% right. It isn't rocket science to figure this out, though. No polls needed.

[Pithy Cherub]

35. Democrats set their course without any prevailing winds

because the energy is provided by the base. The mythical middle moves in reaction to something not because it is sitting marooned in the middle of the Arabian Sea. The base said don't get into the war and some Democrats to their peril jumped in the politically expedient boats filled with Republicans. Now some Dems are in need of rescue and the base has gone looking for people who would have been smart enough not to provide life jackets and rubber stamps for republicans and the worst president ever and his appointees.

Hopefully, there can be some reproachment and reconciliation as it becomes more blindingly obvious that the inhabitants of this country have positively reacted to those standing on principle in the Democratic party and saying Iraq is/was a mistake and we need to leave it now.

[welshTerrier2]

36. "rapprochement and reconciliation"

the country's problems are so urgent and so severe that we have to have political representation that is willing to call for radical change ... just as one somewhat absurd example to make a point, if the Dems will reduce national CO2 emissions by 10% and the republicans will increase them by 10%, it remains fairly useless if we need a 50% reduction to avoid millions of deaths from global warming ...

"winning" may be much better than losing but it's "what" we win, not "that" we win, that means everything ...

i am 100% on board, well, maybe 90%, with the goal of party unity ... i am beyond dismayed that there does not seem to be an infrastructure in place in the party to achieve it ... there is just not adequate dialog taking place ... even DU can't seem to find any "rapprochement and reconciliation" ...

it really will be interesting to see what impact tomorrow's CT primary will have ... maybe Lamont and those high-power Dems who didn't "back Lieberman" will join with some of the progressive Dems in the House to call for a party-wide "town meeting" ... something sure needs to change ... November looks pretty good right now; beyond that maybe not so much ... "not bush" is way out in front in the polls; by 2008, i have a feeling that lame-duck bush will be close to invisible ... Dems will be competing against much fresher, less well known faces ... Allen, Giuliani, Romney, Pataki and probably McCain ... it will be easy for most of these guys to push the "i'm not bush" line ... right now, bush is an albatross ...

in another thread about divisions in the party, someone raised the issue of the Dems being too corporate and that that will be the main dividing line within the party ... i hate the "corporate flavor" of both parties ... it's killing our democracy and strangling common sense policies ... but it's hard for me to see, at least as of today, a progressive wing of the party "walking out" over the issue ... i just don't think that issue has translated into a political force yet ... perhaps it will in time ... but the war is another story ... the Democratic Party has been playing politics with this war since before it began ... it's disgraceful and the party's position today, such as it is, is drool and drivel ...

and we may even be looking at a situation in Iraq where bush or someone in his administration pushes for withdrawal of all troops, except the oil field brigades to product Big Oil's investments, at a pace faster than the Democrats ... how pathetic will that be??

[wyldwolf]

37. There is only one reason I disagree with his conclusion

I agree with his numbers, but not his conclusion, because John Kerry recieved the second highest vote total of ANY candidate in history.

Zogby wants us to believe that a few Democrats stayed home and that lost the election? Even when his polling then predicted a Kerry win?

[annabanana]

38. Why does this post read like it's from '03?

Why do I get this jarring deja vu feeling?

[janx]

41. Remember: Dems will never win over Repubs by trying to

BE LIKE THEM.

And that is exactly the tack the party took in the '04 election. Predictably, it failed.

[closeupready]

45. One thing is for sure: Dems will continue being fuzzy on Iraq.

I knew that as soon as they came out with their "New Direction" platform and Iraq was NOWHERE.

They don't want to talk about Iraq, and that is a BIG weakness.

[quiet.american]

48. One thing continues to defy logic.

QUOTE: On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it.

So those contained in the 64%, while professing to the be the party of pro-life, of super patriotism, think that a military conflict started and carried out by deceptive means by the highest government officials in the country, a war that has murdered tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of children, has been worth it for a goal that has changed over and over again and remains undefined?

Defies logic.

[glitch]

53. Yup, we ignored the class war and let them take the voting apparatus. nt

[LSK]

62. I thought they lost because of Kenneth Blackwell and voting machines???

:shrug:

[zann725]

67. Bulldust! Zogby's the best in the "Poll" biz; & he had JK winning easily

...even late on Election day. (I think by at least 40 electoral votes.)

"It was NOT poor war planning." And Zogby (IF anyone) "knows it" for SURE.

[redacted]

74. And if you want a double knockout, also do this:

Attack the "president" for letting 911 happen on purpose. A growing chorus is saying that's the ONLY way you can torpedo support among the "scared shitless" 30 percent that continue to support him--by educating these holdouts. No other issue will be effective with these voters.

[0007]

75. In God we Trust?

Failure to challenge bush on the war killed us in 2004 ...