Has your faith been restored in the Democratic Party's ability to win elections?

[Writer]

Or do you think other factors are at play here?

Discuss! I'll sit back and eat bon-bons.

[Political Heretic]

1. It has little to do with the party and everything to do with the man.

[blm]

11. Baloney - the Dem nominee for 2008 was expected to win after Nov 2006's landslide for Dems which was

made possible by Dean's stewardship of the DNC rebuilding party infrastructure especially in states that had been left to collapse for years.....and especially after Katrina, Iraq Civil War and Record Home Foreclosures.

Obama is doing a great job, but he'd be having trouble pulling ahead and staying ahead if the DNC was still under McAuliffe's stewardship and letting the RNC have total control of the election process for another cycle, and if Bush was still at his most powerful point the way he was in 2004.

Obama is smart enough to know timing and some key allies early on had a LOT to do with his success thus far.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. Worse baloney

I'm no fan of McAuliffe but he operated under pro-GOP environment in 2002 and 2004; 9/11 boosting Republicans due to national security concerns in 2002 and an incumbent with his party in power only one term a massive advantage in 2004.

Situational terrain is never fully emphasized here or on progressive sites in general. We prefer to assign new genius at play instead of naturally inheriting the tilt of the land. A second term midterm in 2006 was ridiculous advantage with Bush stuck in 30ish approval rating, and that has carried over to lesser extent in 2008. An open race for the presidency is generally 50/50 but this year always had a distinct 2-3 point Democratic lean. The recent economic news and Obama's performance in the debates has broken that open even more, although I believe the margin will naturally narrow.

I'm a great example of applying the situational scope. In 2002 and 2004 I was ripped on this site for being too pessimistic. This cycle I had to laugh when many posters said I was overly complacent. The candidates and all the day to day stuff is wonderful to obsess over, but the national scope dictates the winner, far more often than not.

In 2010 we are smack uphill. Let's get that out of the way now. I'll be very impressed with any gains in 2010, in House, senate or gov. We'll be playing defense from the outset given the situational factors.

[blm]

28. 2002 and 2004 would have had a helluva lot more Dem votes counted with stronger party infrastructure

in Ohio and Florida. Ohio Dem activists had been complaining since BEFORE 2000 that they had been ignored, and after 2000 it only got worse, not better, under McAuliffe.

But, 2008 has belonged to Democrats since before 2006 - probably right after Katrina. Bush's approval has been well under 40% for over 3yrs.

[Political Heretic]

34. I'm not dissing Dean, who I admire, or what he did for the party.

It still has more to do with the man and the right place, time and climate in history.

That's not to say that another nominee wouldn't have won and that it would have had lots to do with the DNC. But in this case, its more about the man, and its more about the time. Sorry.

[blm]

38. Then create a scenario for an Obama win in 2000 and 2004. You can even use his current status as

senator.

[Political Heretic]

41. What's the point - is there even the smallest chance that you'll change your mind?

No?

Then no point in discussion.

I could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure you're certain you aren't. So forget it.

[blm]

48. The point is that....you can't. The rampant neglect of infrastructure for over 8 YEARS

assured that past two Dem nominees and their Dem voters would NOT get a significant number of their votes counted. There is NOTHING that can replace the 4yrs of rebuilt and strengthened party infrastructure in states like Ohio - certainly nothing that can be built from the ground up once a nominee is decided.

Can anyone really claim that the first election post 9-11 when Bush and Rove and the GOP were at their strongest is no different than the first election post Katrina, post Iraq Civil War, and post Record Home Foreclosures when Bush and Rove and the GOP are at their WEAKEST?

[Political Heretic]

50. That's your opinion. This isn't a quantitative subject.

One could argue that infrastructure or no, Obama still would not have one had it not been for the combination of the economic crisis and his particular attributes.

And I've got as much non-anecdotal evidence for that theory as you do, which is none.

So, you're welcome to your opinion. It is nothing more than that.

[blm]

52. The 2008 Dem nominee was EXPECTED to win as early as fall of 2006. Not so in 1998 or 2002.

That's a FACT.

Try a little CONTEXT. Really....it doesn't hurt.

[Political Heretic]

53. Like I've said repeatedly now. You could be right. The reason I'm done talking to you is because:

You refuse to accept that you could be wrong.

[blm]

55. I've made errors and admitted them here....I'm not wrong about this. And you know it.

YOU are the one dug in a hole that you started with a false premise.

[Political Heretic]

62. Exactly as I said. You could be right. You refuse to accept that you could be wrong.

What else is new.

Opinion is opinion - "false premise" doesn't apply. You can no more provide quantitative proof for you opinion than I can for mine.

[PermanentRevolution]

2. Ask again in 20 days...

[justiceischeap]

3. I'd say I'm much more positive about their ability to run a campaign

But we haven't won yet, so I'll reserve that answer if and when we do win.

[Egnever]

4. Not a bit

I lay this victory and it will be a victory directly at the feet of Dean and Obama. The dem party is along for the ride on this one.

[damntexdem]

5. Almost, but not quite.

Waiting for November.

[kirby]

6. No...

All this money spent and we still have one fundamental problem...

An insecure voting system with faulty machines and an inability to properly count/recount votes. If the election is at all close, it will be a nightmare.

[blm]

7. It has everything to do with a DNC working for 4yrs on the 50state strategy that strengthened

party infrastructures in states that had been left to collapse for years. Without that effort we likely would NOT have come out ahead in 2006, and the states where Obama won would have still been dominated by the Clinton loyalists controlling everything.

This is also a postKatrina, postIraqCivilWar, postRecordHomeForeclosure world we live in. That, together with Dean's work to rebuild and strengthen party infrastructure will lead to victory.

[OKNancy]

8. I blame Howard Dean

for my optimism!!!
LOL

[nichomachus]

9. It's not the party -- it's Obama and his organization n/t

[lady raven]

10. Not yet

But hopefully that will change in the near future.

[bermudat]

12. Let's wait til November 5th

[HughMoran]

13. Is today November 5th

Did I go into a coma or something?

Weird.

[Selatius]

14. People are voting Democratic to stop the pain. If it were good like the 1990s again, well...

I wouldn't think they'd be voting for the Democrats in as many numbers as they have.

But I'd have to say that unlike the 1990s, the Democratic Party has had the opportunity to rebuild its grassroots infrastructure that it once possessed in the mid-20th century. The only question is why they allowed that infrastructure to collapse in the first place.

[Danger Mouse]

15. After we win, it will be.

not before. :hi:

[trof]

16. YES! I really don't think they can steal this one.

[tigereye]

17. we learned a good lesson from the past several elections

and in 2006 we did pretty well. We over-engineered things and expended a lot of time and energy.

The Obama folks don't seem to leave anything to chance- I have never seen so many and so enthusiastic volunteers!

[dkofos]

18. I don't have faith in the party, but I do have faith in Obama.

[blm]

29. You think Obama would have won under McAuliffe's DNC and collapsed party infrastructure in so many

states like Ohio?


You do know that the Dem nominee TAPS INTO the Dem party infrastructure in the state that EXISTS, right? If McAuliffe's DNC was in charge instead of the four years of Dean's 50 state strategy, Obama would be in a much tougher spot right now. In fact, it would be doubtful he'd be the nominee, with Clinton loyalists in charge of everything the way they were under McAuliffe in 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

[dkofos]

40. Did you mean DLC

[crankychatter]

19. the media is the problem, not the democrats - nt

[Mz Pip]

20. We shall see...

I honestly don't know what to believe. I agree with Obama, we can't get cocky.

[NEDem]

21. We haven't won anything ...yet.

[endarkenment]

22. Mostly it is the colossal fuck up that is the last 8 years.

Although Obama has run an excellent campaign - I do give him lots of credit.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Let's keep GOTVing. Barack warned us not to get cocky. Repost this OP on Nov. 5.

In the meantime, apply your witty persuasion to phonebanking and/or canvassing in a battleground state and/or volunteer to
drive voters to the polls on Election Day. :)

[bigwillq]

24. I'll tell you Nov. 5.

:)

[psychobueller]

25. We haven't won shit, yet!

[Laelth]

44. Welcome to DU!

:dem:

-Laelth

[Enthusiast]

27. No way!

The Democratic Party has not won anything yet. And the very likely outcome is that McCain will win through subterfuge. The right wing controls the media so anything can happen.

[PatGund]

30. Not until we win it for real

[Dr Fate]

31. Ask me later. Obama himself has asked us not to get cocky. n/t

n/t

[AZBlue]

32. Um, we haven't won yet, so anyone saying "yes" is being silly.

[Arkana]

33. We haven't won anything yet.

[TooRaLoo]

35. Not a Dem thing, but new kind of campaigner.

Which I fully expect the Dems to take notes from and USE from now on.

[Geek_Girl]

36. I think with Dean at the helm of the DNC the winds have changed

It's heartening to see a dem do so well in places like VA and that is because he is actually campaign there. I would have liked to see a little bit more effort put into my state TN but I know it would be a tough win for Obama.

I also give a great deal of credit to the Obama campaign they've done an excellent job.

[book_worm]

37. Post on November 5

[windbreeze]

39. We haven't won anything yet, have we?

at least this time around...got a few weeks to go yet...wb

[SeattleGirl]

42. Not completely. I'm scared to pieces that Dino Rossi (R-Asshole)

will manage to beat Christine Gregoire this time around. He is a Bush clone, and as I've said before, I don't know if I could stand to live here any more if he got his evil, stinking claws on the state.

[Laelth]

43. Not yet.

Obama is superb ... the best candidate we've had in decades, but this election can still be stolen.

I will have faith when we have hand-counted paper ballots for all federal elections.

-Laelth

[DrTeeth]

45. they haven't won it yet

nt

[LSK]

46. 2006?

:shrug:

[MrSlayer]

47. No, how can it be when we haven't won yet?

If Barack can pull this off he may have changed the way politics are done forever. But until a victory is confirmed I'm still preparing for the worst.

[seabeyond]

49. i havent lacked faith in candidate nor campaign. my lack comes in honest elections. n/t

[blm]

58. Exactly right. Whenever anyone posts otherwise they let the REAL THUGS off the hook

and misdirect attention....yet again.

[my3boyz]

51. Ask me on Nov. 5th. nt

[sampsonblk]

54. No, not one bit

There are still far too many who counsel weakness as an electoral strategy. Weakness is not a way to win elections, and it hampers our future candidates. It gives voters the impression that we don't have any strong beliefs.

[EstimatedProphet]

56. Let's win first.

[Uzybone]

57. No

because we haven't won yet.

[salguine]

59. it has nothing to do with winning elections. The better question, for me, would be

"Do you have faith that the Democratic Party will offer sufficient vigilance against election theft, and that the Democratic Party will not just roll over and take it when this election is stolen?" Because I remain convinced that this election will be stolen. Only this time, will anything be done about it, unlike the last two? The Party's ability to win elections was never in doubt. They won 2000. It's "Will they stand up for themselves this time?"

[demokatgurrl]

60. No problem- we won in 2000, and probably in 2004

so why not now?

[Richardo]

61. Ask me on November 5th