Dems depressed, Repubs estatic?

[southsider2k5]

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans expect 2006 to be a good year along with 49% of Democrats.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Rating%202005.htm

[NorthSideSox72]

Being sort of in the middle, I don't see why the Dems are so depressed. Frankly, I see a lot of signs that 2006 will see many things swing more to the left. I think the midterm elections look like a potential success for the Dems, and I think that Dean's grass roots initiatives are causing things to change from the bottom up. Combine that with the continued fracturing of the Repuplican party and the Bush administration's continuing tendency to step right into the big piles of it, and I think things will be better for the Dems this time next year.

 

All that said, however, the Dems still have a serious lack of leadership to spearhead their initiatives. Dean is a great engineer but a lousy voice, and Kerry just looks like a complainer-at-large. They need a few new faces and voices to take the lead. Without that, success will only be a small step forward in 2006. Further, the GOP is still FAR better at marketing and campaigning at the higher levels. These are the two areas that will keep the GOP from backsliding very far.

[Rex Kickass]

This isn't relating to political success as much as general feeling throughout the year.

[NorthSideSox72]

This isn't relating to political success as much as general feeling throughout the year.

 

Oh. Hm. So you mean they asked a question about how they felt about 2006 independently, then asked later what their party affiliation was? Sorry, I must have misinterpereted the question. I didn't get that impression from the article.

 

Heh. Sorry, posted a bit off the trail there. Please continue with your regularly scheduled posting.

[WCSox]

and I think that Dean's grass roots initiatives are causing things to change from the bottom up.  Combine that with the continued fracturing of the Repuplican party and the Bush administration's continuing tendency to step right into the big piles of it, and I think things will be better for the Dems this time next year.

 

All that said, however, the Dems still have a serious lack of leadership to spearhead their initiatives.  Dean is a great engineer but a lousy voice, and Kerry just looks like a complainer-at-large.

 

IMO, Dean does more damange to the Dems than good. Energizing young voters is important, but (1) most young people don't vote and (2) his rhetoric alienates moderates. The Dems have to appeal to all of those dumb, pickup-driving hicks in the flyover states and Howard Dean isn't going to accomplish that.

[Rex Kickass]

You're acting like this is a Presidential year. It's not. It's a year based on state and local races. Folks like Warner in Virginia and Schweitzer in Montana are more likely to make the difference than Howard Dean or John Kerry.

[WCSox]

You're acting like this is a Presidential year. It's not.

 

I understand that, but it's the same party. People in Small Town America are less likely to vote for their state and local Democratic candidates if Howard Dean is on the evening news saying that, "some of them [Republicans] have never worked an honest day in their lives."

[NorthSideSox72]

IMO, Dean does more damange to the Dems than good.  Energizing young voters is important, but (1) most young people don't vote and (2) his rhetoric alienates moderates.  The Dems have to appeal to all of those dumb, pickup-driving hicks in the flyover states and Howard Dean isn't going to accomplish that.

 

Where did you get young voters? Who said anything about them? Grassroots does not mean getting young voters - it means building campaigns, money and motivation from the local level, and from individual voters.

 

And for the record, I don't think those "flyover" states in the south or the plains you refer to are the best target for the Dems. If they are smart, they are looking at the West (CO, NM, AZ, MT, OR, WA, and even TX) as their new horizon, especially for congressional seats.

[NorthSideSox72]

I understand that, but it's the same party.  People in Small Town America are less likely to vote for their state and local Democratic candidates if Howard Dean is on the evening news saying that, "some of them [Republicans] have never worked an honest day in their lives."

 

Actually, I'd contend that would work for some moderates.

 

But you do get at a very important weakness in the Democratic party, which is the lack of thought leadership and the building of positive messages.

[WCSox]

Where did you get young voters?  Who said anything about them?  Grassroots does not mean getting young voters - it means building campaigns, money and motivation from the local level, and from individual voters.

 

You are correct by definition. However, college campuses are where a very large chunk of grassroots campaigns are begun and also where Dean got the majority of his support, percentage-wise, during the '04 primaries.

 

And for the record, I don't think those "flyover" states in the south or the plains you refer to are the best target for the Dems.  If they are smart, they are looking at the West (CO, NM, AZ, MT, OR, WA, and even TX) as their new horizon, especially for congressional seats.

 

The Dems already have a very strong presence in OR and WA (CO as well, but to a lesser extent). Conservatives are far and few between in places like Portland and Eugene. They need to focus more on IN, OH, MO, and KS than a place like MT. Agreed about TX and AZ, though.

[Rex Kickass]

Not so much KS and IN as much as Arkansas and Tennessee. West Virginia too.

[NorthSideSox72]

It is true, there are a few individual states in the south or midwest that are ripe for the Dems, such as AR, TN, WI and WV, as you two pointed out. But the west is a broader area that should be a priority.

[BigSqwert]

Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans expect 2006 to be a good year along with 49% of Democrats.

 

 

Wonder how excited Republicans will be after this Abrahamoff disaster. From everything I have read it looks like mostly Republicans will look bad after this is all said and done.

[WCSox]

From everything I have read it looks like mostly Republicans will look bad after this is all said and done.

 

Funny how the media tends to spin everything that way, isn't it?

[Rex Kickass]

The dude's a Republican lobbyist and was part of the K Street project. There's really no other way to spin it. Spinning it is saying that his PAC gave a little money to Democratic candidates four years ago and using the "They All Do It" defense.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a Dem gets fingered. And if he or she does, nail their ass to the wall. I know that GOPers are going to get fingered. And their asses ought go right up alongside em.

 

But the guy is a Republican lobbyist. Which meant he was peddling influence with the GOP, not the other way around.

[WCSox]

The dude's a Republican lobbyist and was part of the K Street project. There's really no other way to spin it. Spinning it is saying that his PAC gave a little money to Democratic candidates four years ago and using the "They All Do It" defense.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if a Dem gets fingered. And if he or she does, nail their ass to the wall. I know that GOPers are going to get fingered. And their asses ought go right up alongside em.

 

But the guy is a Republican lobbyist. Which meant he was peddling influence with the GOP, not the other way around.

 

I know that. I was making a generalization about the media. If 60 members of Congress have been implicated, I'll bet that at least a few of them are Dems. But I agree that the majority will probably be Reps.