Redstate

I think things are different because so many people distrust Bush. (more than 1 in 5 Americans think he blew up the Towers as an excuse to start a war) He has no credibility and any nominee supporting his plan gets painted with the same "no credibility" brush.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think the only way we win if the War in Iraq is a non-issue. I agree the GOP would win in a landslide based on the GWOT, but I think Iraq is a loser for us because 2/3 of America feels like they were misled about why we are there etc, etc, we've heard it all before.

I still think we have a great chance at winning for a couple of reasons. (The 3rd reason would be Iraq is on the way up by the Fall and we catch Bin Laden in the Spring of 2008. Unfortunately Ron Paul may have a better chance at being our nominee that we have a chance at those miracles happening)

1 - Things go poorly with the surge and the moderates on the Hill vote to override Bush's veto and because we are already pulling out of Iraq our nominee is off the hook and can focus on winning issues. (Spending, Immigration, GWOT, Taxes, SCOTUS, etc.) Since the Dems have no plans other than surrender, we win this election easily and Bush and his conservative successor plan and deal with the aftermath of leaving Iraq too soon.

2 - Things go poorly with the surge but the Dems can never override a veto so we are stuck with 60+% of America against us on the #1 issue of the election. Whomever our nominee is will have to break with Bush or risk getting killed in a landslide. He wouldn't call for a "cut and run", but some responsible plan that will placate enough Independents to win.

This will also allow the election to be about more than Iraq which as stated above is a winning strategy for us. Also this would ease the decision of millions of people who hate the Dem's solution (the people you mentioned that never vote liberals on National Security), but who don't trust Bush enough to consider his plan.

dsk, the democrats have already buried themselves with appeasement statements in this between election poll world that will come back to haunt them when such statements are presented in the CHOICE world. Now, the yak yak is seen in an MSM fake world of consequenceless polls.

In 2004, the real poll, after 13 months of same, proved that when actually voting between two real choices, we win.

Yes, life sucks, and when the choice is Bush or some imaginary "other" that would produce nirvana, then other wins.

Other ain't running

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

1 in 5 people you meet every day is a complete jackass that must have taken the short bus to school to believe such nonsense. Here are two polls that show it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_...

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

before the attack. Conspiracy theorist nuts have long been a fixture around the world.

LEADING CHURCHILL MYTHS (5)
“Churchill and Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance”
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=951

It was about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and had the following memorable exchange:

Cartman: They aren't going to find out who did it. But they'll make up a scapegoat, send him to detention, and make us all believe it. It'll be 9/11 all over again.

Kyle: Will you shut up about 9/11!

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?!

Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy is a retard!

Cartman: Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?

Kyle: Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.

Stan: Yeah, at least one-fourth.

Kyle: Let's take a test sample: There's four of us, you're a retard, that's one-fourth.

---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

MSM had won for me months before. When Americans get focused, they reject weakness, tax hikes and nanny statism.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

... the consequences of losing in 08 are much higher than any election in a very long time.

because they had a monopoly in the media, but I do remember well when I was democrat in the 80s that I knew my party was going to lose to Reagan in 1980, 1984 and 1988 because we were weak on defense and Reagan and Bush 41 managed to get those words said in public.

I knew how powerful it was to be seen as weak.

Americans abhor weakness, and election campaigns for president have a way of focusing on two visions.

BETWEEN elections, the MSM can easily make anyone look weak when compared to some imaginary perfect president.

Elections get the voters focuused on actual choices.

I have never been wrong on who would be elected, and this issue has always been the one that informed me.

The aberations were when we THOUGHT we were not at war in 92 and 96.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

want to knock them out this soon. I haven't heard any criticism of the democratic candidates by the media except for token hit pieces on Biden sticking his foot in his mouth.

The media spent 13 months on bushlied before Election day 2004 and still lost when Iraq was much worse than now.

Presidential CAMPAIGNS, see the emphasis?, have a way of transending the MSM near monopoly, because they GRAB the attention of the usual TUNED OUT electorate.

Presidential campaigns, unlike congressional years and much more unlike rare year six greivance years, focus the usual tuned out Americans on a choice between liberalism and conservatism.

Conservatism always wins.

Always.

Even in 2006 the dems won with fake conservative congressional candidates and in 1992 and 1996, Clinton won only with Perot and with being conservative.

What is so ironic now, is that the MSM has fooled the 2008 dem pres nominees into thinking the american people have become McGovernites.

They are not.

Period.

Heck, even France isn't.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Even though things were worse the GOP still had some trust with the country. At this point Bush has run his tab up too high. People just don't trust him as evidenced by the fact that his is 15 points lower than 2004.

Either Bush's numbers have to go up through the miracles I wrote about just above or our nominee has to get away from him. The surge is the last chance for enough people that if it doesn't go well our nominee won't be able to go along with Bush's next plan or hold out hope that the surge show results at some point in 2008.

rating. Truman go that low here in the United States back during the Korean War.

I was just curious. I haven't seen numbers that low, but I haven't been able to find too many recent UK opinion polls. I think the ones I've seen are closer to low-30s. It's a shame, though -- it's mostly because of the war in Iraq.

Bush isn't running and (nearly) every voter knows this. The issues that elected him are still valid issues. Even if they are dissatisfied with GWB, they are not running away from the issues that are important.

Americans still want to win this thing.

Americans still want to go to the mall in safety.

They are not going to elect someone who is perceived as weak on defense. Hillary knows this hence her greatest challenge: appease the left while winning the votes of the sane.

Can anyone imagine how excited the terrorists would be today if John Kerry was President? How much closer they would be to achieving their overall goal of destroying America?

will be their downfall in 2008. In the past, the MSM rooted for the Dems, while slanting coverage toward the Dems, while maintaining a semblence of impartiality.

They pretented to be objective while slanting the news.

This time around, all pretenses are off. A blind Kossack, if he has half a shred of honesty, can see how the MSM is biased. The American electorate is seeing through the MSM charade. MSM dominance is on the wane, and the American people will revolt against the bias of a "free and independent" press.

it's sad.

Sad indeed. CBS's "Up to the Minute" in particular sounds like a DNC press release every time I watch it lately.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I saw a recent poll that showed 50% of the population doesn't know who Fred Thompson is. If he or Romney or Hutchison or any of the other similarly unknowns wins the Republican nomination they will be well known in the general election. And I believe that once we settle on a candidate, ours will be much more appealing than Hillary.

I am a native of SC, having been a dem party official from 1980-1996. I was an objective observer in 2000.

SC is and was an open primary state. Over 35% of democrats are conservative, so in 2000, given no contest in the dem party caucuses, many dems voted in the GOP primary.

Over half of McCain's support was democrats.

McCain lost that race on the issues, not any negative push poll by a rogue "repub".

McCain was caught in lies on abortion. He was caught on tape telling California repubs that he would not appoint a justice that would overturn Roe. He favored raising taxes. He was seen as a man that would say anything. He was not popular with rank and file repubs.

In 2008, the dem party also has a primary.

He is old and he is toast. Many Baptist preachers have said that Mitt is more Baptist than actual Baptists. I have seen Mitt win over evangelicals that see him.

I do not beleive Mccain will win.

Now, I am not a poll guy, but, I bet Mitt beats McCain. The real race will be Mitt v Rudy.

I think Mitt will win.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I was dem then. An econ major. I loved 41's "voodoo economics" attack on Reagan.

Econ major Reagan got the last laugh! to America's benefit.

I had a conservative epiphany in 2000.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

in that race? I seem to remember him disparaging supply-side economics and Reagan's opposition to abortion in the same breath in one of the debates.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

I believe.

GHW Bush didn't become pro-life until he ran for president in 1988.

The GOP primary voters didn't have a "litmus test" on pro-life credentials until maybe 1996. Although GHW Bush was a reliable pro-life president during his four years in the White House.

and can't honestly say we would have been appreciably better off with Bush 41 and James Baker rather than Clinton-Gore. Surely the moral example would have been better, but as to policy, not much difference.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

A second Bush 41 term, just think:

-no Somalia debacle (which influenced Osama greatly)

-no Clinton-scale cutbacks in the military

-real reaction to terrorist activity, not play-acting

-no wall of separation between intelligence agencies

-Monica would have been screwed in Little Rock, if at all, and no impeachment scandal to distract attention.

I have seen first-hand that the second terms of Bush 2, Clinton, and Reagan are demonstrably less about supporting the base than they are about appealing to the presidents' own moderate inclinations.

I have to credit Bush 2, though. He will go down in history as the first president to serve two full terms without once raising taxes. I challenge anyone to name another 8-year president who didn't raise taxes.

As for Bush 1, I think that his only major mistake was nominating David Souter when he could have and should have nominated Kenneth W. Starr. His concern about Starr was that Starr supported a law which allowed whistle-blower protection for those who reported incidents of fraud, waste, or abuse in defense contracts. Such a silly reason to torpedo a nominee.

And for this arrogance, we got 14+ years of David Souter's liberal views on the Constitution and our rights. It may be a long time before the wrongs of the Souter court are righted.

won't run.

I feel that there's a 50/50 shot that Bloomberg will win. He's sending out mixed signals at this point. But remember Ross Perot in 1992? Mixed signals were the hallmark of his campaign.

though I certainly wouldn't put it past a strong Presidential candidate to have enough coat tails to pull in a bare majority in the House as well. I think all 3 (4 if you count F. Thompson) frontrunners have some possibility of doing so (though they all, especially Rudy, have some things that could also potentially depress turnout for down-ticket candidates). Either way, the best we can really hope for is a Republican POTUS, a split House, maybe with a R Speaker, and not losing ground in the Senate (the battlefield is just too tilted against us this year to gain back control in the upper chamber...though the same should have been true of the Dems in 2006, so I guess anything can happen. Murphy would say it would happen towards the 2006 side rather than the hypothetical 2008 side though, I suppose).

I think that Gamecocks central thesis - that the GOP will win the White House *because of* the war is way, way off. I do however, think that they might still win it *despite* the war, thanks to the horrible bunch of dems running for the nomination. None of them (excepting maybe richardson and biden who are both long shots) strikes me as even credible.

There is virtually no way though that the GOP regains control of the senate and I think their outlook in the house is not much better. Having become a convert to divided control of government then, I'll be pulling for whomever the GOP nominee turns out to be though I'm hopeful that it will be either McCain or Giuliani.

-exits

I think there is merit in your post (though I think there is a chance that we could take back the House, or close enough that we can force votes on tax cuts and such with the help of moderate and conservative Dems, as well as keep close enough in the Senate so as to do the same), but as far as the statement

"The Republicans have never gained more than 2 US Senate seats...while in possession of the White House"

that's not quite so. Republicans gained 4 seats in the Senate in 2004 (actually picked up 6 (IIRC, FL, GA, LA, NC, SC, SD), but lost 2 (CO, IL))

That's right. In 2004 the GOP picked up a net of 4 seats.

But I would point out that all but one of those were due to open seats in Red States.

And as the other commenter says, "Anything is possible." Still, with us defending 21 to their 12, I think the odds are that the Democrats will expand their majority in the US Senate. But I'd like to be proven wrong.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

open seats did play a big part, you're right (SD the lone glorious exception, I think, though even with Breaux's retirement, you might count LA as well, with Vitter shocking everyone to pull in an outright majority and avoid a runoff. and in NC, the seat was open as much because Edwards knew he couldn't win as that he was running for Veep).

the rest is certainly true as well. as I say above, we'll be doing good not to lose ground in the Senate (and I do think that, or very minimal losses (-1 or 2 seats net), is quite possible).

We will win LA and we have a great shot in AR, assuming Huckabee stops smoking crack and gets into a race he can win. SD is also vulnerable because of Johnson's health. If not for one word, macaca, VA would have turned out differently. It is entirely possible that in a state like MT or IA something that small could change the race. (especially MT)

As for our seats, if we lost one or two it could still be a net gain or break even. CO is easily the most vulnerable, but it is entirely possible that there is a pullback from the huge Dem swing recently. The other seats are currently going to be incumbents returning. It will be hard to vote them out for things that haven't been done because these Senators are in the minority now and don't have much control.

As for our seats

If you looked 18 months before the last election, didn't it look like we couldn't lose the Senate because the numbers were working against the Dems? Anything is possible.

is All it would take to change the make up of the Senate.

"Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

John Kerry meeting with our ememies. in Paris.

Sen Kennedy requesting Aid from the Soviets to prevent a Republican from becoming President.

Sen Rockefeller, meeting with Syrian leaders, as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

That doesn't even take into account votes on the Senate and House floor to agree to the demand of the terrorists in Iraq.

but who in this Administration will bring the charges? AGAG?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

it's too early to be drinking the hard stuff. I can help you find a meeting.

Any bad result in Iraq is POTUS' fault. Period. He was presented funding legislation that gave him MORE than he asked for and he vetoed it. It's not the fault of the Democrats that he is stubborn and continues to resist the expressed will of the American people.

Go have a cup of coffee and see if RoadRunner is on.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I am not too sure if that will be the case. It will take a lot of historical revision to make that happen.

These are the Democrats who made a lot of political hay over this president not "giving the troops what they need". I remember the "up armored Humvee" and "body armor" hysteria some time ago. Now they are voting to cut funding?

I have been wrong before, and I may be this time, but I don't see it that way anyway.

The only way the president gets blamed is if the MSM spins it as all his fault and the Republicans do a crappy job of getting their message out.....

Oh wait... [Rosanna Rosannadanna impersonation] Never mind

I stand corrected.

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

BTW when your on the hard stuff in the morning its Fog Horn Leg Horn

if the Democrats were in charge of National Defense. They have believed that since the late 1960s at least. Of course, the Democrats have never even tried to prove them wrong.

Storm clouds on the horizon are the AMT that will hit 42% of the country this year, working through the subprime lending woes and expiring tax cuts over the next few years.

I predict that no matter who is elected president in November 2008, the economy will fall into a recession in 2010, when the Bush tax cuts expire (and the Democrat Congress allows this to happen because they hate "the rich"), and the president will be defeated in 2012.

So, if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008, a Republican will win the White House in 2012. Or the reverse.

But no way, Jose, will the next president get reelected. See my blog on "How Presidents get reelected." The expiration of the tax cuts and the AMT issue make it even more so.

The Left thinks that the "axis of evil" is Wal-Mart, Haliburton and Enron.

Gamecock DeVine
The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson