Are Democrats too confident in 2008 election race?

[actsnoblemartin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071024/pl_nm/usa_politics_democrats_dc

LOWELL, Massachusetts (Reuters) - Mary Burns has the kind of Democratic pedigree that dominates Massachusetts politics. Her family and friends vote Democratic, and she lives in a district that has not elected a Republican in 35 years.

But on October 17, she joined other disgruntled Democrats, voting for a Republican in a special congressional election.

Her candidate, Jim Ogonowski, who campaigned as an anti-immigration crusader, lost to Democrat Niki Tsongas by only 45 percent to 51 percent, a much closer margin than expected in a district Democrats saw as safely theirs.

Now political strategists across the country are trying to figure out what Ogonowski's strong showing means for the nation as a whole and how worried Democrats should be about next year's elections for president and Congress.

Despite President George W. Bush's low poll standing, the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the formidable money advantage Democrats have established over their Republican rivals, last week's vote warned Democrats not to get overconfident.

"There's a lot they still have to be nervous about," said Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University.

"The shakiness of this particular victory in Massachusetts is the kind of thing that sends a message to the national leadership as they start to think about the next cycle."

Democrats should remember that the Iraq war will not be the only issue in 2008 and that the party's stance on immigration in particular -- most favor allowing illegal immigrants a path to legal status -- could be an Achilles heel, he added.

Ogonowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and brother of an American Airlines pilot killed in the September 11 attacks, was never expected to threaten Tsongas, widow of Sen. Paul Tsongas, in a district her late husband once represented.

Former President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi campaigned with Tsongas. For some voters, their presence reinforced her image as a Washington insider. Ogonowski downplayed his Republican ties and instead vowed to fix a "broken Congress" and fight illegal immigration.

While Tsongas tried to make the election a referendum on Bush and the war, Ogonowski issued fliers that overlapped images of Tsongas and Bush with the words "Niki Tsongas/George Bush Immigration Plan: Amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants."

'ONE OF US'

"He was like one of us," Burns said of Ogonowski.

"He wasn't from a political background or a political family. He was just looking for changes in Washington like we all are. I have a lot of Democratic friends who voted for him because he understood their concerns," the 46-year-old advertising executive added.

Some Republicans also drew confidence from Saturday's election of Republican U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal as governor of Louisiana. The incumbent Democratic governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, still blamed for post-Hurricane Katrina incompetence, decided not to seek re-election.

"Jindal walked away with that race," said Democratic pollster Dave Beattie, who is not affiliated with a campaign.

"There's a real anti-incumbent, anti-Washington mood out there," he said. "Democrats cannot take for granted that just because voters are upset with the Republican administration it doesn't mean they think Democrats are much better right now."

Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio said overconfidence was a risk for both parties. He recalled that many Republicans never imagined they could lose control of both houses of Congress last year.

"While there is no question that the current political environment nationally looks to benefit Democrats, it is over a year before anybody will actually go and vote. A year is an eternity in politics," he said.

"Think back a year ago. A year ago there were still a number of Republicans who were convinced that we weren't going to lose the House or the Senate. So many things can change over the course of year," said Fabrizio, who is not affiliated with a campaign in 2008.

[Abbey Marie]

Democrats should remember that the Iraq war will not be the only issue in 2008 and that the party's stance on immigration in particular -- most favor allowing illegal immigrants a path to legal status -- could be an Achilles heel, he added.


Rep. candidates had better remember this, too.

[glockmail]

Hillary-Obama will be hard to beat. She'll get most women and all the blacks, and she'll give Hussein a little closet to sit in and some pencils to sharpen for the next 4 years while she single-handedly destroys the US economy.:pee:

[manu1959]

Hillary-Obama will be hard to beat. She'll get most women and all the blacks, and she'll give Hussein a little closet to sit in and some pencils to sharpen for the next 4 years while she single-handedly destroys the US economy.:pee:

who was the last president to fuck with big business and what happened to them?

[glockmail]

who was the last president to fuck with big business and what happened to them?
Carter? That's why I said 4 years instead of 8.

[manu1959]

Carter? That's why I said 4 years instead of 8.

i was thinking JFK .... but carter did only get 4....i always chalked it up to the hostage crisis etc.....not domestic issues...

[glockmail]

i was thinking JFK .... but carter did only get 4....i always chalked it up to the hostage crisis etc.....not domestic issues...
JFK got off'd by Johnson and the rest of the Democrat crooks for political power not corporate greed.

[PostmodernProphet]

there's a whole lot of life that will pass us by before anyone gets a chance to vote in November, 2008......little can be gained by discussing who thinks what today......check with us again when the parties decide who it is that goes one on one, head to head......so far I have refused to watch a single debate.....Michigan has its primary in January (if they still bother to have one) and I figure it will take me a week at most to catch up on who is in favor of what and decide who to vote for, so I'm not going political till after Christmas.....

[gabosaurus]

With the Bushies currently screwing up the country, you would be confident, too. :lmao:

[avatar4321]

With the Bushies currently screwing up the country, you would be confident, too. :lmao:

Gabs, the fact is i dont think as many people as you think believe that this country is screwed.

Im still waiting to hear from you guys how Bush has screwed the country. Ill probably be waiting a while.

[eighballsidepocket]

What I find interesting, and nearly hypocritical, is that organized labor is one of the major parts of the Democratic base, and organized labor doesn't want illegals flooding into the country, as they erode the "union" pay scale/safety conditions/benefits.. etc... that they fought for over 100 years to attain.

The Unions have brought benefits to the non-union American worker as well, as they/unions set standards that often forced non-union contractors/employers to match with their non-union employees.
******
So, we have this very strong party financial/support base within the Democratic party, that is very anti-illegal immigration, yet the leadership or "talking heads" of the party who live off the moneys of organized labor and their vocal support in so many ways on the grass roots level for Congressional seats as well as high seats..i.e. the President, are not being represented or supported.

If anyone thinks even Caesar Chavez who started/organized the UFW in California was pro-illegals, then you are smoking something other than tobacco, in my opinion.

Illegals or those that even GWB wants to receive special "cards" or visas that allow them to be documented but not citizens, to work here, and come and go, will also erode an important Democratic base; namely the Western and Southwestern U.S. farm laborer/worker who are part of organized labor, or here, legally/documented, reaping the benefits of wages determined by UFW standards in their geographical areas.

What I'm observing here in the Democratic party is a dynamic called double mindedness. It is prevalent in all the parties, but we are talking about the Democratic "silence" in respect to illegal immigration from our Southern borders. The Latino/Hispanic base is a big one for the Democrats, and they are unwilling to "commit" in this area, with a strong stand of yea or nay. If you are the working man/woman's party, and you want good work conditions, and wages, yet are looking the other way at illegals coming in, this is just covertly allowing the American wage level/living standard of middle to lower middle class labor to erode.

Even the auto plants set up by Asian companys in the Southern states, where they are free from UAW influence or organizing, still have much pressure to provide good benefits packages, as well as good wages, and good, safe, healty job conditions, because of what American, organized labor fought for in the past.

I realize that organized labor can get fat, and overly presumptuous about their wants/needs, as they can lose sight of what they were estblished for. Yet, American labor, both organized and non-union are threatened by the influx of illegals that will work for pennies on the dollar and then in most cases send those monies back home. Local U.S. economies are not greatly enhanced by illegals working here. Their allegiance is not with the country that provides their wages, but with their original homeland and the families they often are supporting in those homelands.

I guess GWB's plan to get them registered so they pay taxes is one slight hope, but I think it would be an eye opener to really know the extent of American dollars going to Mexico, via Illegal's incomes in the U.S..

If there's a plan that Democrats could initiate, it would have to be broad based and brave. All of the latter they will not do. They are afraid of alienating their labor based support, and they're ethnic based support in the form of Hispanic/Latino/Mexican voters.

To some extent, they are also keeping a blind eye to the Islamic minority in the U.S. too by purposefully ignoring or minimizing terrorist connections or possibilities within our borders. This party has the hardest time with maintaining an unskewed, ethics based position. They don't encourage an embracing of American values, but instead, often cause either ignorantly or blindly ethnic separation within our borders, not unlike European/ethnic ghettos. This hinders ethnic groups from gradually enjoying the benefits of the American liberty, not based on ethnic superiority, but on individual merit, and integrity.

They have the sensitivity vote, but their ethics are a mish-mash of motives that are very confused, and often contradictory. Some how their base just tolerates that platform. Why? I don't know.

The Republicans have their own problems, as they had chances to make great strides back when they acquired a majority in the executive and Congress. As far as values go, the Repubs. seem to lack the endurance to stay a course of action, but have easily retreated/backed-down, and are barely a force for the Democrats to reckon with.

Maybe the biggest problem is that humanity is fallible, and it covers folks of any political/philosophical ideology. Great men with great visions have fallen to stupid temptations, and ruined their virtuous mandates. Weak men with little vision have risen up and done great things, despite their past.

John Doe...."Where are you? We badly need you now!"

[gabosaurus]

If you don't think Bush has screwed up the country, you are blinded by the light. Only the hardcore Bush apologists refuse to accept the obvious.

[Trigg]

With the Bushies currently screwing up the country, you would be confident, too. :lmao:

Bush isn't the one running.

You seem to think there is going to be a mass exodus to the other side by republicans because they don't like what Bush is doing and IMHO that just isn't going to happen.

People are capable (at least republicans) of seperating Bush from the Republican Presidential candidates.

Also, as much as you and other libs on this board what to think Hitlery will be the next pres, many dems I've talked to refuse to vote for her. My sister votes dem. (although I'm trying to make her see reason) and she absolutally hates Hillary.

[5stringJeff]

If you don't think Bush has screwed up the country, you are blinded by the light. Only the hardcore Bush apologists refuse to accept the obvious.

I'd love to see the economic data that supports your hypothesis.

[Guernicaa]

Hillary-Obama will be hard to beat. She'll get most women and all the blacks, and she'll give Hussein a little closet to sit in and some pencils to sharpen for the next 4 years while she single-handedly destroys the US economy.:pee:
lol, yeah last time I checked fair taxes, a balanced budget, and surpluses are "destroying" the economy. lolol.

[avatar4321]

lol, yeah last time I checked fair taxes, a balanced budget, and surpluses are "destroying" the economy. lolol.

How is raising taxes fair?

How is increasing spending 100 fold balancing the budget?

Pretending there is a surplus doesnt make it so.

[JohnDoe]

How is raising taxes fair?

How is increasing spending 100 fold balancing the budget?

Pretending there is a surplus doesnt make it so.

Would you rather continue to borrow the 700 billion a year that congress has been borrowing the 6 consecutive years under republicans? adding 5 trillion so far to the national dept, when in the USA's HISTORY's accumilation of debt under all presidents combined was 5.6 trillion thru 2000?

and the repubs did this.... not the dems? $5 TRILLION ADDED to the debt in 6 YEARS.....

please, taxes are going to go up, UNLESS we have a huge economic boom...just to pay the interest payment on that 5 trillion extra they borrowed so far...estimates of 6 trillion added to our debt by the time president bush's reign is over!!!


we gotta pray for a huge boom, or taxes will go up.

and rangle's tax proposal is neutral... and gives a tax break to millions and millions of the middle class being hit with the minimum alternative tax?


jd

[manu1959]

Would you rather continue to borrow the 700 billion a year that congress has been borrowing the 6 consecutive years under republicans? adding 5 trillion so far to the national dept, when in the USA's HISTORY's accumilation of debt under all presidents combined was 5.6 trillion thru 2000?
and the repubs did this.... not the dems? $5 TRILLION ADDED to the debt in 6 YEARS.....
please, taxes are going to go up, UNLESS we have a huge economic boom...just to pay the interest payment on that 5 trillion extra they borrowed so far...estimates of 6 trillion added to our debt by the time president bush's reign is over!!!
we gotta pray for a huge boom, or taxes will go up.
and rangle's tax proposal is neutral... and gives a tax break to millions and millions of the middle class being hit with the minimum alternative tax?
jd

hate to tell you ...but the dems did it as well....don't recall the dems refusing a raise....or not aproving pork.....or voting to stop anything....

[JohnDoe]

hate to tell you ...but the dems did it as well....don't recall the dems refusing a raise....or not aproving pork.....or voting to stop anything....The wars in afghanistan and Iraq, and Katrina were OUTSIDE of the budget, along with other emergency spending.

And yes, they should have filibustered more in the Senate, even with all the crying like babies from the repubs that they would be obstructionists... I agree. ;)


jd

[glockmail]

lol, yeah last time I checked fair taxes, a balanced budget, and surpluses are "destroying" the economy. lolol. You, a flaming liberal, supporting the Fair Tax? Yeah, right. :lol:

[JackDaniels]

You, a flaming liberal, supporting the Fair Tax? Yeah, right. :lol:

If you had the ability to comprehend English, you'd know he was not supporting the Fair Tax in any way.

[avatar4321]

Would you rather continue to borrow the 700 billion a year that congress has been borrowing the 6 consecutive years under republicans? adding 5 trillion so far to the national dept, when in the USA's HISTORY's accumilation of debt under all presidents combined was 5.6 trillion thru 2000?

and the repubs did this.... not the dems? $5 TRILLION ADDED to the debt in 6 YEARS.....

please, taxes are going to go up, UNLESS we have a huge economic boom...just to pay the interest payment on that 5 trillion extra they borrowed so far...estimates of 6 trillion added to our debt by the time president bush's reign is over!!!


we gotta pray for a huge boom, or taxes will go up.

and rangle's tax proposal is neutral... and gives a tax break to millions and millions of the middle class being hit with the minimum alternative tax?


jd

Again, how is voting for people who are going to spend 100 times more going to help fix that problem?

[glockmail]

If you had the ability to comprehend English, you'd know he was not supporting the Fair Tax in any way. And if you had that ability, you'd realize that I was pulling his leg. :pee:

[JohnDoe]

Again, how is voting for people who are going to spend 100 times more going to help fix that problem?Simple Avatar, they won't spend 100 times more than republicans... they can't spend anymore than the republicans did during their first 6 years and they NEVER HAVE spent as much as the republicans did the first 6 years in full power, under Bush.

It is just republican fear mongering, when all through history the Democratic Presidencies have been MORE fiscally responsible than the Republican Presidencies, if you look at all the specific figures on this it is plain as day.

100 times more than the Republicans spent when they were in full control would be spending 300 TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR....and that is simply an IMPOSSIBILITY and as I said, a fabrication of the "right" to fear monger and whip up their constituants in to a lying frenzy, only to coverup their own guilt, is how I see it.

What else could it be?

jd

[JackDaniels]

Again, how is voting for people who are going to spend 100 times more going to help fix that problem?

Republicans have shown they are much bigger spenders than Democrats.