Political Crossfire Forums

[Kumar]

Moracca wrote: Kumar wrote: Howard Dean is a phenomenal man. You Americans are lucky to have him.

We found Him! Howie's Colorado ski bum bud in his college days! :dance:

Kumar wrote: Howard Dean is a phenomenal man.

Memories, eh?

:lol:
Halt the jabronism. Recognize Mr. Dean's greatness. He accomplished a lot for the state of Vermont and he can accomplish a lot for the United States. 8:)

[Moracca]

Kumar wrote: Moracca wrote: Kumar wrote: Howard Dean is a phenomenal man. You Americans are lucky to have him.

We found Him! Howie's Colorado ski bum bud in his college days! :dance:

Kumar wrote: Howard Dean is a phenomenal man.

Memories, eh?

:lol:
Halt the jabronism. Recognize Mr. Dean's greatness. He accomplished a lot for the state of Vermont and he can accomplish a lot for the United States. 8:)

"Halt" and "recognize"? "Greatness"? You got a bran muffin to go with that?

[flamboyant]

Mr.Bill wrote: I hate to admit it but Carville's right. The Dem victory should have been much bigger. An unpopular president in an unpopular war and the democrats pick up less then average amount of seats during a 2nd term of an administration. In FDR's 2nd term the democrats lost 71 seats. FDR!!

Damn straight, it turned out a pretty mild rejection of the party in power, not only from a historical perspective, but especially when you consider the dynamics were in place for a blood bath.

There is no one on the Democratic side whose talent for the game scares me like Carville's does.

I also like the fact that he could end up married to a Republican strategist like Matalin - that shows you that as much as he comes off like a rabid pit bull, he's also a big enough man to step away with it and respect someone from the other side enough to marry her. He's a pit bull alright, but hardly a rabid pit bull, more like a very shrewd and calculating pit bull.

[flamboyant]

Moracca wrote: Kumar wrote: Moracca wrote: Kumar wrote: Howard Dean is a phenomenal man. You Americans are lucky to have him.

We found Him! Howie's Colorado ski bum bud in his college days! :dance:

Kumar wrote: Howard Dean is a phenomenal man.

Memories, eh?

:lol:
Halt the jabronism. Recognize Mr. Dean's greatness. He accomplished a lot for the state of Vermont and he can accomplish a lot for the United States. 8:)

"Halt" and "recognize"? "Greatness"? You got a bran muffin to go with that?

The best part is it's coming from a guy with The Rock in his avatar. :lol:

[Dookiestix]

http://www.dailykos.com/

Quote: Chris Bowers beat me to the post I've been meaning to write for the last few days:

Quote: Big Picture

Democrats won six Governorships, and lost none, moving from a deficit of 28-22 to an advantage of 28-22. The gains came in Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio.

In state legislative bodies, Democrats control 56 chambers, Republicans control 40. Two, the Montana House (previously tied) and the Pennsylvania House (previously Republican controlled) are undecided. Democrats took nine legislative chambers, and lost none. The gains came in Indiana (House), Iowa (House and Senate), Michigan (House), Minnesota (House), New Hampshire (House and Senate), Oregon (House), and Wisconsin (Senate). The Iowa Senate was previously tied, and the Oklahoma Senate, previously controlled by Democrats, is also now tied. I believe, however, that the tie in the Oklahoma Senate goes to Democrats, because we have the Governorship there.

Democrats control 3,964 state legislature seats, and Republicans control 3,307. I do not know how many are controlled by third parties, or are currently undecided. Democrats also have a non-southern majority in state legislature seats for the first time in many years.
My favorite factoid in the state legislative world: there are 400 member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives (that's one representative for every 3090 residents, roughly). We picked up 89 seats in NH to give Dems the majority in the House for the first time since at least 1922.

Chris makes a number of critical points: we have "restocked our bench," with legions of new potential candidates being groomed for higher office; Dems can start to govern progressively in many states; these gains can be built upon for creating a much more Dem favorable redistricting after the 2010 census.

And here's a great advantage not mentioned by Chris: historically the party that controls the most governorships has the advantage in Presidential elections. If you want to think about it in terms of electoral votes, Democratic governors are in place in states that combined will have 295 electoral votes, up from 126.

Ah, the wisdom of a 50-state strategy.
Carville needs a serious dose of STFU and get on with it. But my feeling is that he has ulterior motives anyway. Obviously, he doesn't like Dean. And that's a good thing.

[eynon]

Dookiestix wrote: flamboyant wrote: Snoop wrote: flamboyant wrote: You don't think for the anti-incumbent mood across the country it was actually a pretty weak showing?

I agree with Carville completely, although of course, I hope the Dems keep Dean right where he is. In bonehead statements alone he's been a godsend to Republicans. I don't know enough to know whether he's succeeded in playing catch-up with what Mehlman's done with his voter lists, but we're a lot better of with him in charge than if Carville were head of the DNC. He was like a freaking master artist with what he did with the Clinton campaign.

I agree that Carville did damn good job with Clinton, and would love to see him take a biger curent roll, but doubt he would be willing to do so.

However Deans plan has always been aimed at 2008 and beyond more then 2006, the fact that it is already paying off is vary impressive and more then a bit surprising to me.

That's funny, we're both quite the optimists - I tend to see the election as a pretty poor result for the Dems all things considered, you seem to have much optimism going forward.
This is a pretty divided and polarized country, so the Dems win was that much bigger, IMHO.

on some issues yes, but remember it was Moderate and Conservative Dems that won, not the left-wing........Americans can agree on a couple things; we're sick of corruption and getting sick of the the war in Iraq. That's why the Dems won, not health-care, not gay rights, not call war or any other number of polarizing issues.

[Dookiestix]

eynon wrote: Dookiestix wrote: flamboyant wrote: Snoop wrote: flamboyant wrote: You don't think for the anti-incumbent mood across the country it was actually a pretty weak showing?

I agree with Carville completely, although of course, I hope the Dems keep Dean right where he is. In bonehead statements alone he's been a godsend to Republicans. I don't know enough to know whether he's succeeded in playing catch-up with what Mehlman's done with his voter lists, but we're a lot better of with him in charge than if Carville were head of the DNC. He was like a freaking master artist with what he did with the Clinton campaign.

I agree that Carville did damn good job with Clinton, and would love to see him take a biger curent roll, but doubt he would be willing to do so.

However Deans plan has always been aimed at 2008 and beyond more then 2006, the fact that it is already paying off is vary impressive and more then a bit surprising to me.

That's funny, we're both quite the optimists - I tend to see the election as a pretty poor result for the Dems all things considered, you seem to have much optimism going forward.
This is a pretty divided and polarized country, so the Dems win was that much bigger, IMHO.

on some issues yes, but remember it was Moderate and Conservative Dems that won, not the left-wing........Americans can agree on a couple things; we're sick of corruption and getting sick of the the war in Iraq. That's why the Dems won, not health-care, not gay rights, not call war or any other number of polarizing issues.
The war was most certainly a factor. But exit polling showed that the #1 concern amongst voters was corruption. There is no doubt the Dem's more moderate and conservative candidates helped them capture the House and Senate. I don't think Americans were even thinking about healthcare or gays when they voted for national issues, but were probably reflecting on them when they voted locally, as was the case in several states. But those local issues nonetheless, coupled with more national issues that favored Dems, certainly became a potent formula to put them over the top and capture Congress.

[Kumar]

Moracca wrote:
"Halt" and "recognize"? "Greatness"? You got a bran muffin to go with that?
Not for free.

Howard Dean is unfairly criticized by many who are only vaguely familiar with what he stands for. He is a moderate, not a leftist radical.



You are looking at the face of excellency, Moracca. Bow down. 8:)

[eynon]

Dookiestix wrote: eynon wrote: Dookiestix wrote: flamboyant wrote: Snoop wrote: flamboyant wrote: You don't think for the anti-incumbent mood across the country it was actually a pretty weak showing?

I agree with Carville completely, although of course, I hope the Dems keep Dean right where he is. In bonehead statements alone he's been a godsend to Republicans. I don't know enough to know whether he's succeeded in playing catch-up with what Mehlman's done with his voter lists, but we're a lot better of with him in charge than if Carville were head of the DNC. He was like a freaking master artist with what he did with the Clinton campaign.

I agree that Carville did damn good job with Clinton, and would love to see him take a biger curent roll, but doubt he would be willing to do so.

However Deans plan has always been aimed at 2008 and beyond more then 2006, the fact that it is already paying off is vary impressive and more then a bit surprising to me.

That's funny, we're both quite the optimists - I tend to see the election as a pretty poor result for the Dems all things considered, you seem to have much optimism going forward.
This is a pretty divided and polarized country, so the Dems win was that much bigger, IMHO.

on some issues yes, but remember it was Moderate and Conservative Dems that won, not the left-wing........Americans can agree on a couple things; we're sick of corruption and getting sick of the the war in Iraq. That's why the Dems won, not health-care, not gay rights, not call war or any other number of polarizing issues.
The war was most certainly a factor. But exit polling showed that the #1 concern amongst voters was corruption. There is no doubt the Dem's more moderate and conservative candidates helped them capture the House and Senate. I don't think Americans were even thinking about healthcare or gays when they voted for national issues, but were probably reflecting on them when they voted locally, as was the case in several states. But those local issues nonetheless, coupled with more national issues that favored Dems, certainly became a potent formula to put them over the top and capture Congress.

I agree...........interesting thing is that in my state Dems won by a large margin, but a number of gay rights intative failed by a large margin(which I all voted for)............so many people were voting Dem, but voting against "liberal" issues.....gonna be fun to see which way both parties go. My humble prediction is that after maybe a decade of running to the base, both are going to start running to the center. Dems are lucky though because they don't have a radical/polarizing president shackled to them for the next 2 years.

[ubikk]

Mr.Bill wrote: I hate to admit it but Carville's right. The Dem victory should have been much bigger. An unpopular president in an unpopular war and the democrats pick up less then average amount of seats during a 2nd term of an administration. In FDR's 2nd term the democrats lost 71 seats. FDR!!

It could have been much bigger, but I doubt you can blame Dean. Without Dean they might have only gotten 10 seats instead of 30. IMO the problem lies elsewhere.

Dean was the one who said (paraphrasing) "The Democrats need to appeal to white males who drive pick-up trucks with rifle racks" and that's exactly what bought them a lot of seats in red states.

Of course he unfortunately added "With Dixie Flags" to the end of that sentence and ruined the moment, and putting "White" at the beginning was not thought out well but the basic idea was sound. He should have substituted "South" for "Dixie", and used something else in place of "white". He was referring to the fact that the GOP was painting the democrats as a party of minorities, immigrants and quotas and a threat to certain people. Sounds dumb, but people fell for it.

[eynon]

ubikk wrote: Mr.Bill wrote: I hate to admit it but Carville's right. The Dem victory should have been much bigger. An unpopular president in an unpopular war and the democrats pick up less then average amount of seats during a 2nd term of an administration. In FDR's 2nd term the democrats lost 71 seats. FDR!!

It could have been much bigger, but I doubt you can blame Dean. Without Dean they might have only gotten 10 seats instead of 30. IMO the problem lies elsewhere.

Dean was the one who said (paraphrasing) "The Democrats need to appeal to white males who drive pick-up trucks with rifle racks" and that's exactly what bought them a lot of seats in red states.

( He unfortunately added "With Dixie Flags" to the end of that sentence and ruined the moment, but the basic idea was sound)

that should become the Dem party motto........."Just Shut-up!" and they'll never again loose their majority.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Carville won this election in spite of Dean using the same candidate selection strategy that worked very well from the Clinton era. He is right on this one and I despise Carville. 8:)

[jamesp]

ahhh...

two weeks in and we are just watching the winners implode..and we haven't even said anything !


although the 08 elections are just two years away, they really only have about 6 months to get it all together....

I'm thinking they really don't have enough time to end the squabbling and form a unity...


Carville wants the Clintons..again..and Dean may not be so quick to pull the Hillary trigger..so that means Dean has to go...

This will really be fun to watch..

Hillary to become a War time candidate ..
with NO Military experience what so ever

running against those in her own PARTY who are RUNNING on War time experience..and Military experience..

and most likely running against McCain..also War Time experience..

folks, the next election WILL be criticle for a candidate with Military background..I doubt that this Country will elect anyone that has not seen the horrors of war first hand.

This is a HUGE obstacle for Hillary, one I don't think she can overcome.

it's all about perception.Once Carville starts bashing the WAR candidates the party will be broken in half for decades.

[Mr.Bill]

Quote: and used something else in place of "white".

The Southern Middle Class would have fit better. Of course the Northern MC have been a little PO'ed at the GOP lately too.

[Mr.Bill]

Quote: folks, the next election WILL be criticle for a candidate with Military background..I doubt that this Country will elect anyone that has not seen the horrors of war first hand.

I don't know. I don't see how Rudy G. can win the GOP nod, but somehow if he does I think he'd easily win the election. The moderates from both parties would vote for him, and because he's a Republican the hard core conservatives would stick with him even though he's pro abortion, pro gun control, etc.

But again because he's seen as a liberal republican it's going to be tough for him in the GOP primaries.

[DMS]

I think they should fight to the death with dull rusty knives.

[Sucker Punch]

Nixon wrote: ...and that criminal Murtha

Anyone else see the irony in someone named Nixon calling someone else a criminal?

[JoeBen81]

Moracca wrote: flamboyant wrote: You don't think for the anti-incumbent mood across the country it was actually a pretty weak showing?

I agree with Carville completely, although of course, I hope the Dems keep Dean right where he is. In bonehead statements alone he's been a godsend to Republicans. I don't know enough to know whether he's succeeded in playing catch-up with what Mehlman's done with his voter lists, but we're a lot better of with him in charge than if Carville were head of the DNC. He was like a freaking master artist with what he did with the Clinton campaign.

I agree, leave Dean where he is. Unless of course Kerry wants the job.
:lol: Welcome back, see what happens to the GOP when you leave PFC.

[Rankor and Pissing]

Dean is a squirrely shifty eyed quirky (enter adjective here), with all that said... he does what's needed for the Democratic party. I personally don't like the man, and I think God every day he's not running this country as President.

As a DNC leader though, I think he does a good job. He's controversial when he needs to be, he's got a big enough mouth to call attention to the party, he says what's needed and he follows the far left MO and seems to be good at communication. Party leadership positions are supposed to be very partisan - he's leading his own party and he needs to support that position all the time. I think Carville had his time - I know little about the man other than what I see on MSM so I really don't have much of an opinion on him but I see no reason for Dean to step down. Dean, that shifty eyed slug, is doing what he's supposed to and seems to be doing a good job.