Democrats will have success in the 2006 midterm elections, but the Republicans will once again gain the White House in 2008 simply because the Democrats have no viable candidate to run.  Hillary Clinton, in 2008, will be the Howard Dean of 2004: the early favorite until the base realizes she is un-electable.  After Billary, the Dems have no strong candidates.  John Kerry has not ruled out running again.  The other party, however, has plenty of big names running.  Rudolph Guilliani, John McCain, Bill Frist, and Mit Romney to name a few. 

This is ridiculous on its face.  Bill Clinton - the best politician of our time – was virtually unknown outside of Arkansas two years before he was elected.  I could go on, but I am not sure naïve pronouncement is at all deserving of it. 

As for the Congress, the Republicans did not come up with the Contract for America until about a month before the election.  There is still a lot of time left for Democrats to provide leadership and direction and it may be that maximum political benefit would be had by waiting until just before the election to do it.

Each individual candidate will have to go do the hard work on the ground in their district to make themselves a viable option, and then the national push can come in October when people are actually paying attention.

nindid:

I saw your comment after I made mine and I do want to say that you make an excellent point about rushing to judgment too soon. Mine was merely picking up on the point that Hillary as a candidate seems to me to be heading in totally the wrong direction. I do think a lot of analogies from 94 apply. I think that may be because people are going to think about the peace and proseperity of the 90's and wish they could recreate them! As ill-informed some might argue it is, I think a lot of voters will attribute that success to the gridlock of having a talented president challenged by a House of a different party, as they did then. They will look at what happened with a Republican president, House and Senate and go for the "gridlock is good" thing again.

A majority of Americans say the Democrats are not offering the country a clear direction that is different from the Republicans...

It's no wonder.

When Dems like Hillary Clinton don't say anything more than "our troops can't die in vain" in Iraq, and Dems like Ben Nelson can't clearly state whether Roe or even Griswold should be upheld, it becomes apparent that we're just trying to be Republican-lite.

On Iraq, there's really no excuse for any Dem to parrot Republican talking points.

And I understand that for job security, people like Ben Nelson have to say things like that. But when you look at poll results like the ones above, is there any doubt it hurts the party?

P.S. I also have this very strong feeling that Al Gore could win a landslide. He is the ideal anti-Bush anti-Clinton Clinton, not to mention already known an expert on the coming energy crisis. The reasons given for not voting for him then will turn into reasons to vote for him now. Too many were conflicted back then, now they will look back and say "duh, why didn't I vote for him?" Go ahead and call me nuts, but I just got to say it because it's Ken Baer's thread, the more people like him hear this, the more they pass it on to the appropriate ears.

And I understand that for job security, people like Ben Nelson have to say things like that. But when you look at poll results like the ones above, is there any doubt it hurts the party?

It would help the party if Nelson were replaced by a Republican, then?  

Comparisons to 1994 will continue (although that year was unique on so many levels; a discussion to be continued on a later post). Overall, Democrats should be pleased at the political landscape. But the hard work is yet to be done: elucidating a 21st-century progressivism and finding leaders with the intellect, courage, and charisma to make the case for it.

This is about the 30th post like this I've seen here.  I've even made one or two myself.  Something tells me there will be lots, lots more.

The other polls I had heard about on CNN a few weeks ago, which i think were CNN polls but I'm not sure, had the GOP ahead by 10 percent on the "who's best on terrorism" poll.

I think Dems are spending too much time on anti Iraq war, and not enough on economy and other issues.

Jimmy Carter's book, although I havn't read it, I think is on the right track regarding what we should be focusing on.  I think this article written before 9/11 was on the same track.

These issues will provide for better ammunition in the war on the GOP.  Particularly if Iraq does turn out to be viewed as an overall success in the future.  (viewed as an overall success by voters mind you, not by bloggers.)

Democrats will have success in the 2006 midterm elections, but the Republicans will once again gain the White House in 2008 simply because the Democrats have no viable candidate to run.  Hillary Clinton, in 2008, will be the Howard Dean of 2004: the early favorite until the base realizes she is un-electable.  After Billary, the Dems have no strong candidates.  John Kerry has not ruled out running again.  The other party, however, has plenty of big names running.  Rudolph Guilliani, John McCain, Bill Frist, and Mit Romney to name a few

Some how I don't think of these names as eminently electable nor do I think they are siginficantly more attractive than those available to the Democrats. 

For example, consider Al Gore.  Over the last 4 years he has articulated a clear, positve, forthright and courageous position on everything from the war to most recently global warming.  He has said and done what he should have done during the campaign, which is to speak out forcefully for solid progressive American values.  Or consider Joe Biden who has been asking tough questions of the adminsitration for 4 years and been getting stonewalled.  Or consider John Edwards who is making significant headway around the country with his campaign to raise awareness of the true nature of poverty in America.  All of these men would make excellent candidates.  Frankly, I doubt anyone outside Mass and Utah has a clue as to who Mit Romney is.

Anyone who's watched 15 minutes of Hardball knows the Dems have no ideas or policy suggestions.

Friend, you really need to understand the rules before you get involved in a high-stakes game.

Rules? Yeah. The rules that determine how legislation is introduced, and how it moves (or dies). The minority party is at the mercy of the majority when it comes to getting legislation addressed. GOP discipline has imposed a severe limit to any action that the Democrats can take.

Any policy proposals made by the Democrats at this time can become co-opted, either by adoption by the GOP (in a form unrecognizable at the detail level to any progressive) or through agressive attack. Thus, Democrats' legislative victories have involved taking a stand against (e.g., social security deform) or in a procedural moment like last week's that helps the media focus on the GOP's incompetence or corrupt influence.

Policy statements will trickle out, but don't look for anything as tightly organized as Gingrich's CWA to be brought out a whole year before election day. There's far too much at risk, given that enactment of any progressive legislation is impossible until the make-up of Congress is changed.

Here's the CNN / USA Today / Gallup poll from 2 weeks ago.  It differs regarding the "who's best at dealing with terrorism:"

"The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are."

And there was the following figure, which most of the abandon Iraq bandwagon folks around here ignore:

"And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq. This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month."

This last poll figure is bound to drop even more as times goes on and Iraq gets more on its own feet.

I have this question for those who report that the Republican party has "great" leaders.  Where were all these "great" leaders when bush was lying us into this war? Where were all these "great" leaders when bush was spending us into an economic stupor?  That part of the poll just doesn't add up.

As it happens I posted on this very subject today.  I quote,

"Where the Democrats have the biggest challenges to changing voters minds are in the areas of direction and leadership, and neither issue is a small matter.

On the question of "clear direction different from Republicans," my opinion is that this is the most significant of the two Democratic vulnerabilities. Changing direction means giving up one set of priorities for another. The current party in power's priorities are fighting the war in Iraq and enhancing the relative positions of corporations, special interests and the wealthy. These two goals could not held in highest regard by the larger numbers of ordinary voters, if they really thought about it.

The first priority, went on the path of fighting the war in Iraq, redirected the nation in a counterproductive way. Most believe going after al Queda in Afghanistan made sense, but we lost our way there. A majority of people now question whether we should ever have invaded Iraq. The second priority direction was given to the corporate sector. Which large corporations have ordinary citizens' best interests at heart? Some perhaps do. But look at corporate mainstream media, for example. Profit drives their decisions, not the well being of ordinary citizens. Essential watch dog work and investigative journalism has not been well supported. The most recent campaign finance reform measures, unfortunately, opened the door for "K Street," special interest groups to purchase public officials. The third priority went in the direction of the rich. Tax cuts for wealthy individuals necessitate borrowing vast amounts of war finance money from foreign markets. The other source of money comes from cutting domestic discretionary programs necessary to the well being of the general public. Democrats must find and stand for very different priorities, ones that benefit the majority rather than the minority.

On the question of which party "has stronger leaders," I believe that in this instance Republican traits seen as "strength" are indeed something different. I believe the country began to get it wrong a few months after 9/11. The natural and normal fears engendered by that terrible attack made us a little blind to what we were seeing as strength. Stubbornness, intransigence, arrogance, braggadocio and swagger are qualities that are limiting to good leadership, not enhancing. Our current president's numbers have rapidly dropped in recent months in part because he is now seen as weak and inept. Democrats must now find and grow their leaders. The public is receptive to this, right now, beginning on election day tomorrow, as a matter of fact."

I'll ask you: If we had more than enough D's for a majority, would anyone really miss him if he was?

But we don't.  And when we did, it was only because we had a lot more people like Nelson in our party, and even -- gasp! -- a lot worse people than Nelson in our party.



I guess it's a cost-benefit analysis -- the cost of Ben Nelson making people think we don't have a clear alternative to GOPs, versus his one seat that gets us closer to a majority.

You miss the point entirely.  Nelson isn't an anomaly.  He isn't some rogue.  He ain't play actin' ta fool da rubes in 'braska so he can get elected.  There are a lot of rank and file Democrats who think just like Nelson.  People who would look at your "clear alternative" and choose the Republicans.  The problem, my friend, isn't Nelson -- it's you.  You are more out of step with mainstream values than he is.  But you want to pretend that you aren't, that the problem isn't that more Americans prefer a Nelson than they do a Barbara Boxer, but rather, Americans just want a "clear message," and don't care what it is.  A politician like Nelson could win in any state in this country; a politician like Barbara Boxer, "clear alternative" and all, could win in maybe 10.  You still don't get it, you probably never will get it, but at least it's laid out there.  Yet again.    

Bullshit.

Majority of Americans, like me, want to uphold Roe v. Wade.

Nelson: "can't say."

Who's out of step?

You are.  Because a majority of Americans vote on more issues than Roe vs Wade, some of which are much more important than Roe vs Wade to them.  Think about yourself.  Think about how "strong," to use your own terminology, your position on Roe vs Wade is.  Compare that, if you can, to the nation as a whole.  Do you think that you support Roe vs Wade more strongly than the average American does?  I can assure you that you do; just look at some of the recent Supreme Court decisions limiting Roe, all of which I bet you disagree with.  

The average American is closer to Nelson, even on abortion and Roe vs Wade, than they are to you.  But like I said, you don't get it and you probably never will.  

The more I think about it, the more likely I believe a successful Gore candidacy would be in 2008.  Whatever bitterness Dems have towards him for his lackluster performance in 2000 has dimmed especially in light of Kerry's even worse performance in 2004.  Ryan Lizza made a convincing case that Gore really is the only candidate who could unite the various elements in the party opposed to a Hilary nomination given his hawkish/interventionist bonifides and his opposition to the war in Iraq.   

I think the 2008 election may very well be an aberrational one in which the country will turn less to a candidate that excites them but more towards one that reassures them.  Gore could very well be that candidate

Nindid:

 Clinton an unknown?  I'm not so sure about that.  I think, perhaps, you are referring to his odds of winning upon his entrance into the presidential race.  After all, he was governor of Arkansas and already made national headlines for the Jennifer Flowers sex scandal.  Calling him "the greatest politician of our time" is a bit of a stretch.  His hands off foreign policy did little but sweep foreign problems under the rug.  As for Democratic candidates in 2008, I'm not even hearing of any governors who are contemplating running.  Others on this thread seem to think Al Gore would be a good candidate to run as the anti-Bush.  One problem with this scenario: Bush will not be a participant in the 2008 election, therefore the anti-Bush rhetoric will be obsolete.  If that isn't enough, John Kerry, the ultimate anti-Bush candidate, failed to unseat him.  I think we can all agree that Hillary will not get the Democratic nomination (Republicans, however, hope she will).  With that said, I'm curious of any possible names that you've heard.  Guilliani and McCain are each viable candidates from the Grand Old Party and will be formidable opponents for whomever the left selects.