Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
super-tired at this early hour but quickly to say the clinton democrats almost had it right
the "new left" closer to the center did some things right. it was when they tried to move things too far left (e.g. health care reform in 1993 led by hillary) that the right came back with a vengeance and tormented the clintons for the next 6 years.
had they played it cautiously, and had calculated natfa to play out better (more worker protections, more money for retraining), they might have kept running the country for a long time.
dubya won... why the fuck did he win? mainly because al gore was a boring-ass candidate nobody wanted to have a beer with. whereas dubya, gosh darn, he's just like a regular guy with his texas drawl, not some yankee aristocracy from connecticut (lol). SALES. SALES. SALES. fucking SALES.
same thing with john fucking kerry. boring-ass and swiftboated. sooooooo fucking incompetent at SALES.
if it wasn't for obama's magic, mccain would have been president 8 years, even in spite of dubya's maaaaaaaaassive fuckups which lost him the house in 2006.
but then 2 years later, again, blam. no congress
why hasn't anyone figured out these cycles yet? repukes get 6 years of congress democrats get 4 but only 2 with their own president. repeatedly.
gotta work on those ratios. which suck.
|
It is very important to go into each election cycle knowing your odds, and the Dems have always had the odds against them in many ways. We pay far too much attention — as a culture — to the presidential stats and we fail to acknowledge the equally important battle in the legislative branch. Time to pay more attention to the odds in these cases, and to start early with prepping '18 candidates for what they will be up against and to strategize about how to beat the Republicans.