Put another pot of coffee on in Mississippi

Maybe they won't. Conveniently, they don't have to. They have eight years of George Bush on their side as well. I think you're painting a far-too-rosy picture on the other side. I think you vastly underestimate how many people are pissed off beyond all belief with the GOP. I just can't see where you think a groundswell of GOP support is going to come from.

 

I guess I don't run in the same circles as you do.

Like I said: If such was the case to the extent you claim, then McCain would be 20 points behind right now.

(BTW, who's been running Congress the past two years? It sure as hell hasn't been the GOP.)

 

I live in a border city, and while there are some folks in town that want a "wall" built, there are plenty that are far more concerned with our President and what the hell he is doing to our country and economy, than our borders - and that goes for pretty much all Republicans in my fair, red county.

I don't think the illegal immigration debate is quite as big as you make it.

It used to be a big deal in my area until gas prices soared, Iraq went to shit and the economy fell apart. That is what Americans care about, not whether or not a wall is built.

 

Actually, you could argue, at least in the Senate, that it has, because the GOP has been using the same blocking and stalling tactics it decried when it had power, and because the guy in the White House happens to belong to the minority party and is willing to veto legislation because it contains one line he doesn't like. I'm pissed at the Dems for backing off too many times, myself. The problem's been that while they're nominally in charge, they're still largely letting the GOP make the rules.

And McCain hasn't had any attention paid to him in three months. Once he's back in the limelight, I think those numbers start dropping in a hurry.

Regardless of what circles you or I run in, I can't for the life of me see how you can look at Democratic takeovers of districts that have been strongly GOP for more than a decade and not see that as a sign. As someone above said, if you can't hold MISSISSIPPI, how do you expect to win much of anything else?

I'm also curious whether Red consider ANY Democrat to be "electable," whatever the fuck that means.

 

Running for Congress is not the same as running for president.

And I don't know where you get the idea that his poll numbers will start "dropping in a hurry" soon. Wishful thinking?

 

Of course running for Congress isn't the same as running for president. So naturally, all those voters who are, district by district, voting for Democrats for Congress will turn right around and vote for the Republican for president. Seriously, where do you get this from? If much of the anger at the Republicans is because of the president, why would those angry people elect another Republican?

I get the idea from the notion that McCain has been subjected to very little negative attention, while Obama has been getting it from two sides. Once Hillary shuts her damn mouth and gets out of the race, Obama can start (a) presenting his own case and (b) start pointing out McCain's flaws.

Look, I don't see how you can disagree that people are pissed off right now, regardless of who they're pissed off at. They're pissed off. That much we can agree on, right?

And who are they pissed off at? In my view, corporations. Oil companies. That sort of thing. And rightly or wrongly, for many people, such entities are identified strongly with the Republican party. And come election day, a lot of people will get in that voting booth, having just driven past a gas station marquee displaying $4.29, and make that association.

 

I guess I just don't see how Obama's unelectable. He's winning pledged delegates, superdelegates, states with primaries, states with caucuses, etc. An unelectable candidate wouldn't have that much sway, would he? And I know Hillary's big on "the states democrats have to win in a general election," but California, New York, Michigan and some others won't suddenly turn red on the CNN smartboard map in November because he's the candidate.

Another thing -- how do we know who's unelectable before the November election? If it's that cut and dried that Obama or Hillary will lose, why have the election at all, ditch Dubya's lame-duck 2008 and start the McCain era now.

 

Get back to me the day after the election and we'll discuss it.

BTW, no Democrat has become president without winning West Virginia. Food for thought.

 

Actually, Obama has won exactly three primaries since Feb. 19 -- Vermont, Mississippi and North Carolina. Four if you count his 49% victory with 0 delegates for Nebraska tonight. Clinton has won six, including big states Texas and Ohio. Since Feb. 19, Obama's primary victories have been Vermont, Mississippi, North Carolina and tonight's Nebraska. Three of those states went to Bush in 2004 and there's not a lot of reason to believe they'll go Dem this November.

 

More food for thought: Woodrow Wilson, 1916.

 

I'm not clear. Which states has Obama won since Feb. 19?

Not a lot of reason to believe they'll go Dem? Maybe you missed the entire topic of this thread.

 

Gee, there's whistling past the graveyard and then there's turning yourself into the reed section of the LSO.
Childers is a Democratic candidate. He will vote with the caucus on practically everything of substance, and most of that will give the vapors to most of the conservatives here. There will be no bills arising from a Democratic House about guns or abortions for him to vote on that will make this argument relevant at all. They brought in Cheney. It didn't help. They overspent. It didn't help. They ran ads with the great new bogeyman, Jeremiah Wright, It didn't help.
Again we see the majesty of rightist magical thinking -- conservativism can never fail. It can only be failed. Hastert's district. Louisiana. And now the Mississippi 1st.
By eight points.
Absolutely, things are looking up for the GOP.