A Thought On The Democratic Advantage
A Democratic consultant e-mails:
"The new Hotline/Diageo poll has a generic Democratic presidential candidate beating a generic republican presidential candidate by 18. 18. Yet (see last week’s Time mag poll) our alleged top tier candidates all lose in hypothetical match ups to real Republican candidates. That is, Senators clinton and obama are more than 20 points less desirable to voters than an imaginary Democrat. our “top tier” candidates may be the only Democrats in existence who can’t win in 08."
http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/
Is this like those comments that said that the huge generic congressional ballot advantage Democrats had over Republicans in 2006 was meaningless because people actually like their own congressman?
Democrats will win in 2008. As long as GOP=Bush/Cheney they're sunk and they know it.
Edwards is beating almost all republican in majority of the national polls. And in a swing state like Ohio, Edwards is destroying ALL republicans including Rudy.
Seriously, you guys on the left confuse me. Since the 06 election you act as if you had some huge mandate to rule the world. There were 435 races in the House of Representatives and you got 30 more wins then the Republicans. That means 405 seats didn't change. Some mandate! In the Senate it was even less of a mandate. Did you argue that the Republicans had a mandate when they had the identical number of seats that you have now in the House and even more in the Senate as recently as 05? The election for 08 will be a close one. George Bush is not running. You guys aren't as popular as you think. I predict no one associated with Washington will win.
Keep whistling past the graveyard.
It seems much more likely that the top tier Republican candidates are more palatable to the public than a generic R. Given that the top tier Republicans (McCain, Romney, Giuliani) are all ideologically purple to varying degrees. That is, none of them match the mold. The fact that these three, a formerly pro-choice former governor of Massachusetts, a pro-choice, pro-gay rights former mayor of New York, and a centrist, "maverick" Senator, are the top tier says something about the Republican establishment's thinking for this race. They know they can't win with a cultural conservative or a Bush clone; they know they have to get someone pushed through the primaries who can, in the general, sprint to the center as fast as their stubby legs will take them.
Which "democratic consultant"? I suspect this post is more about Edwards trying to climb into the "top tier" than the general election. Smart move, but a bit early.
Could someone describe the democratic party's philosophy towards how much government there should be in American life?