No liberal, by today's standards, has ever won the presidency. Clinton won because he played moderate, spoke well, and took advantage of the anger at Pres Bush. He won in 1992 with less than 50% of the popular vote.
Carter won because of the backlash after Watergate and Pres Ford pardoning Nixon.
Dukakis was a liberal and was blown out against Reagan.
Carter was blown out after showing how liberal he is.
Then today, we have Clinton and Obama, who are clear far left liberals. Blue Dog, conservative Democrats, won out in the last election.
What makes Democrats think they can win? I honestly want to know.
2007-03-03 10:46:10 · 13 answers · asked by Chainsaw 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I challenge any liberal who answers this to not insult Pres Bush or Republicans.
2007-03-03 10:57:46 · update #1
The democrats / liberals own and control the media. They will continue only to report anti Bush and anti War until people will vote for anyone to get a change. The media will not report on the good we are doing in Iraq because that would support Bush and republican party.
Ever notice that no matter who controls congress, any thing goes wrong it's the Bush Administration's fault. When Clinton was in office, anything that went wrong was congress fault.?
2007-03-03 11:06:07 · answer #1 · answered by Gunny Bill 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Compared to the "winners" on the Republican side it should be interesting. There are, in my humble opinion, no super stars or real duds on either side. Unfortunately for the Republicans Bush has given the party a bad name and so some very good Republicans may not be elected. It may be close but I respectfully disagree with you and say that the Democrats have, by what I've seen so far, a slightly better chance of getting the Presidency and will likely retain control of both houses of Congress. They will gain a few more seats in the Senate and a few more in the House too.
2007-03-03 10:53:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
funny you should mention Nixon... while Bush doesn't have a "Watergate"... he does have the Iraq war... that's not getting anymore popular...
and the primaries are a long way away... in fact, the last time I looked, Edwards was leading in one of the early states... Iowa I think it was... and I think he does have a chance... especially if the Republicans do something stupid like going with Newt or Mitt...
the real question is... who are the Republicans going with? McCain would be tough to beat I think... but I'm not so sure he's got the support in the primaries...
in reality... it's still WAY too early to start talking about the general election and much can change... no one even knew Bill Clinton's name outside of Arkansas at this point before the 1992 election (in early 91)
2007-03-03 10:52:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Well, the people spoke in the last election and no matter what kind of democrats you state that the newly elected officials are, they are still democrats. Massachusetts voted for a democratic governor even though they were happy with the republican leader simply to make a statement to legislators.
Because of the democratic majority Bush is a lame duck and that is a statement in itself.
People are very very unhappy with thewar and the state of affairs in the US and abroad. Why are Bushes numbers as low as Nixon's during Watergate?
2007-03-03 10:51:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
That is a good question and i have to say your my new best friend. Honestly i think they want to lose. They think the public will get soo tired of republican presidents that by the time a democrat gets in office he will be able to do what he wants. Well...they are very very wrong. I myself am not racist but the cold hard truth is that the majority wont vote for a black president. I would..but most wouldnt. Also, the other possible democratic candidate, Hillary wont win simply because she is a woman. I personally would not vote for a woman president simply because i see women as emotionally unstable. Maybe im just sexist but i dont think so.
2007-03-03 10:52:21 · answer #5 · answered by Promethius 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Let's get one thing straight: Clinton won because of Ross Perot. Period.
Now on to your question... The only way Democrats can win the Presidency is if the Iraq war is a complete and utter failure. That's why they are so critical of it. No doubt it's horrible the casualties America has sustained, but this is ammunition for the Democrats to use to win elections. It's very sad.
2007-03-03 11:07:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Iraq
oh, btw, no liberal has ever won because the Democrats would be right-of-centre compared to other Western nations
regardless, see my 1st point for the reason
2007-03-03 10:49:56 · answer #7 · answered by Go Blue 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Go ahead,, vote for Jullianny or MAC Kain. I don't care because neither stands a chance of beating Hillary, not even a wee bit of a chance. People have had it with all the da**ed lies and cheats. Thus we will have a Dem as Prez and that will be the one and only lady running.
2007-03-03 10:57:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
Iraq. But it would be better probably to have a Republican win and inherit the mess Bush created with his war of choice.
2007-03-03 11:04:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If the Republican's run Condolizza Rice, they can count on loosing the votes of all the dentists in America.
2007-03-03 10:58:18 · answer #10 · answered by JoAnn W 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋