If history is guide, the Democrats are not in good shape: Roosevelt>Truman> Eisenhower 2 terms> Kennedy/Johnson> Nixon/Ford 2 terms> Carter> Reagan/Bush I> 3 Terms > Clinton 2 Terms> Bush II. The mathematic and logical progression would indicate a 2cnd term for Bush II offers higher probability than a Democratic victory in '04, and does not present the Democrats with much reason to hope for success in '08.
Is there no length to which dear timber will not go to turn a doofus into a mathematical progression, is the rhetorical question.
My gut feeling is that Lieberman does not have the proverbial fire in the belly. The only heat I perceive from him is a desire to get Bush out of there and a Dem in.
I don't recall the sequence of who entered when, but as a loyal party member, he certainly could have been pressured, for any number of reasons, to enter when he did, for reasons that we know nothing about.
Who was in (well in, not just by a week or two) when he announced? Does anyone remember?
I do not see the DNC or the traditional institutional investors turning to Clinton or Gore for advice as to who was the best bet to beat Bush.
If the other contenders in the field were perceived as not having a chance, too left, too unknown, whatever, Lieberman could well have been thought of, at that time, as the best centrist person the party had.
And who is Joe Trippi in the Dean campaign? At one time he was managing the entire campaign. Who else has climbed on board?
Who are the advisers and managers of the Clark and Lieberman campaigns?
What have these people done in the past? Surely that is a relevant question as well as to who is electable.
Essentially, what can be said of any of the major behind-the-scenes players in Dem land is that their history has not been marked by notable recent success among The Electorate. In this, they are in concert with many of the players on the stage. The chief characteristic of the Democratic Party is disarray.
Is it math or is it Biblical? I would call McClintock's scathing indictment of Swartzenegger a good example of "disarray." Politics is nearly a synonym of disarray. It's the bureaucratic disorganization that makes the subject so interesting. The suspense factor -- will they ever really get it organized? It's like a Hitchcock movie another twist ending is always ready to be revealed.
blatham wrote:Is there no length to which dear timber will not go to turn a doofus into a mathematical progression, is the rhetorical question.
Simple cost/benefit, observed-effect pragmatism, blatham. Surprises are always possible, but the reason they come as surprise is that they are not likely given the evidence at hand. Reality does not offer much surprise to those who engage it realistically. Dismay, perhaps, but rarely surprise. I would be most surprised should this not continue to be the case.
timberlandko wrote:Essentially, what can be said of any of the major behind-the-scenes players in Dem land is that their history has not been marked by notable recent success among The Electorate. In this, they are in concert with many of the players on the stage. The chief characteristic of the Democratic Party is disarray.
LMAO
Surely you don't refer to the
three most recent Presidential elections?
Stop with the satire, timber; you are
slaying me.
timberlandko wrote: I would be most surprised should this not continue to be the case.
Well, steel yourself for the
, Big Bird, because The Electorate is going to betray your success as a prognosticator.
(Wait a minute...you haven't
had much success as a prognosticator, come to think of it... :wink:)
PDiddie, in the first and second instance of the 3 most recent Presidential elections, and in each of the intervening mid-terms, The Democrats lost influence in the Legislature. In the most recent instance, they lost not only Legislative influence, but they lost the Executive Office as well. Their performance in such regard was further validated by the most recent mid-terms. While it is not impossible the Democrats could abruptly alter the evident progression of events, it is, IMO, highly improbable they will be able to do so.
I have no idea who was manning (if you will excuse the expression) those running for legislative seats in recent midterm elections, but I would think that you must concede that Clinton's people did a pretty fine job for him.
Dunno if I'd say my prognostication has been all that poor so far, as far as I can recall. Like many, I expected a much differnt picture of WMD than has developed, though I do expect further developments to be less than favorable to the critics. The war was not a civilian holocaust, has not become a Vietnam-like quagmire, the Arab Street did not rise up, the Iraqi People have not risen against the US, a large portion of the ongoing resistance is being perpetrated by Ba'athist die-hards and other-than-Iraqi nationals, and is being increasingly directed toward the Iraqi populace, the rehabilitation of the Iraqi infrastructure is proceeding well despite over 30 years of neglect, abuse and decay of that infrastructure, The UN has shown declining relevance, the staunchest of the Security Council critics now pursue accommodation with The US, the US economy continues to strengthen, the incidence of organized terrorist activity against The West has been marked by decline since 9/11, the financial and political support of international terrorism has been, and becomes increasingly, severely curtailed.
I was wrong about the Greenbay Packers, though.
sumac-- of what do you speak?
Clinton's people were only successful if Clinton's goal was the worst routing of the Dem party (or any party) in the history of midterms.
Are we speaking of something other than 2002 midterms?
------------------
Disregard. sumac--sorry. I think I know what you meant. Let us always remember and never forget-- Clinton owes his first election to that nasal freak with the elephant ears from Texas.
<You know who I mean!!!
>
So it's all fine now, timber.
What's the next country to be cleaned and democratised?
(New guesses for Sun., Oct. 12 are wellcome, too :wink: )
Walter--
Would you trade your country's democracy for another form of govt?
I'm not well-versed in other forms of govt--just vague knowledge of a few of the most widely known... Can anyone else cite other workable forms of govt that improve on Democracy--with an example... Like to look into it.
No, I'm quite pleased that we got the same kind of democracy as in the Weimar republic ... having cancelled most of the bad-working articles of the that constitution.
I mean, I personally like our form of government more then you have (or the French).
You are asking this why? (I'm a member of a democratic party.)
To see if some members who decry the democratization of Iraq are merely against the way it came about, or have issues with Democracy. Also, I thought somebody might have knowledge of a superior (better, or more efficient in serving the populace) form of govt.
I don't pretend to know details about all current govts. It was a sincere question. Thank you for answering.
I hope that you will allow me, Mr. Timberlandko, to cut through the miasma of comments made by some of the people who followed you, by giving hard facts and figures. ( Of course, anyone who thinks these facts and figures are wrong are not only free to correct me, but have a duty to do so).
First of all- The tenure of President William Jefferson Clinton.
His "power" over the people was clearly illustrated by the "strength" of his coattails.
In the 103rd Congress when Clinton was elected, the Democrats clearly controlled the House and Senate
Senate- 56 Dems. and Reps. 44
House - 258 Dems. and 176 Reps. other 1
However, the world was turned upside down in
the 104th Congress when the Democrats were buried by a Republican landslide
Senate- 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats
House- 230 Republicans and 204 Democrats- Other -1
Then in the next Congress- the 105th- the line up was Senate Republican- 55
Democrat- 45
The House was Republicans- 227- Dem. 207- Other-1
Then in the next Congress- the 106th-
The Senate was 55 Republicans to 45 Democrats
The House 223Republicans to 211 Democrats- Other 1.
As the liberal African-American Columnist of the New York Times-Bob Herbert comment in his column of 2/26/2001-entitled "Cut Him Loose"
quote
"He was president for eight years and the bottom line politically is this. For the first time in nearly half a century the Republican Party controls the presidency and both houses of Congress>"
end of quote
Just for argument sake, does anyone believe Clinton would have lost to Bush if he'd been allowed to run for another term in 2000?
