ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
From alternet, the two "shining stars" of the Democratic party are polling worse than George and crew, article goes on to talk about the danger of running for this job that has become more complicated in the past couple of years. Said before and will say again, the Democratic party needs to reinvent itself with some new blood or there needs to be a rise of a third party that tends to be less established with the so called, "establishment and status quo".
There are a lot of numbers in the recent poll that would normally give me cause for joy -- the public hates everything about Bush. Only 13 percent think he's done a good job addressing rising gas prices. Twenty-nine percent are still favorably shocked and awed by his performance on Iraq. The surface-level political analysis making the progressive rounds on Bush's bad poll numbers is that they will automatically translate into success for Democrats: takeovers in Congress in 2006, etc.
But if that were the case, it would be fair to expect that a guy like Al Gore would look like the shiniest red apple in the basket. But to repeat, the same poll has Gore polling below George Bush. The Times called Gore one of "Bush's more vocal critics." What does that mean? Let's be pragmatic.
For starters, it means that Al Gore and John Kerry are big losers in the public eye; they weren't the guys at the inauguration. Even though the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections have been contested and remain in dispute, the truth is that neither Gore nor Kerry ever commanded any kind of massive public support for their positions.
If they had, Kerry wouldn't be still grumbling about those 60,000 votes that he needed in Ohio. But this poll that has Gore and Kerry well below Bush is about more than their being losers. If that were true, we might expect to see an untested national-name Democrat, like say, Hillary Clinton, polling at a higher level -- at least in the 40s. But only 31 percent of Americans say they will definitely vote for her, according to the most recent Rassmussen poll.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
From alternet, the two "shining stars" of the Democratic party are polling worse than George and crew, article goes on to talk about the danger of running for this job that has become more complicated in the past couple of years. Said before and will say again, the Democratic party needs to reinvent itself with some new blood or there needs to be a rise of a third party that tends to be less established with the so called, "establishment and status quo".
There are a lot of numbers in the recent poll that would normally give me cause for joy -- the public hates everything about Bush. Only 13 percent think he's done a good job addressing rising gas prices. Twenty-nine percent are still favorably shocked and awed by his performance on Iraq. The surface-level political analysis making the progressive rounds on Bush's bad poll numbers is that they will automatically translate into success for Democrats: takeovers in Congress in 2006, etc.
But if that were the case, it would be fair to expect that a guy like Al Gore would look like the shiniest red apple in the basket. But to repeat, the same poll has Gore polling below George Bush. The Times called Gore one of "Bush's more vocal critics." What does that mean? Let's be pragmatic.
For starters, it means that Al Gore and John Kerry are big losers in the public eye; they weren't the guys at the inauguration. Even though the results of the 2000 and 2004 elections have been contested and remain in dispute, the truth is that neither Gore nor Kerry ever commanded any kind of massive public support for their positions.
If they had, Kerry wouldn't be still grumbling about those 60,000 votes that he needed in Ohio. But this poll that has Gore and Kerry well below Bush is about more than their being losers. If that were true, we might expect to see an untested national-name Democrat, like say, Hillary Clinton, polling at a higher level -- at least in the 40s. But only 31 percent of Americans say they will definitely vote for her, according to the most recent Rassmussen poll.
The unfortunate reality is that the Democrats are not doing any better than George Bush.
By siding with Bush on Iraq and Immigration, the Dems are not giving any alternative choice for the American people.
Furthermore, with the way the Republicans (illegally) redrew the congressional boundaries (Tom Delay's Texas redistricting and picking up 6 Republican congressional seats is now with the Supreme Court), I don't see any shift in the House or Senate in the coming election.
Both Houses will still be controlled by the GOP (total domination of legislative, judiciary, and executive branches).
The only changes I hope will be in the governor's races, with the Democrats picking up CA, NY, and Ohio. And maybe FL.
If the BLUE states want to break free from the "conservative" shackle, the only way I think is to secede from the union.
I have been a strong proponent of breaking up the United States of America.
One place to start the secession is NY, where 90% are democrats. The Northeast and Mid Atlantic states can join the movement. I can see all of New England joining except maybe for NH.
Kerry/Gore are the reason George Bush is living in the White House, if the Democrats had come up with a "decent candidate" Bush would never have made it.
The Democrtats will repeat this mistake again, they want a FAR LEFT WHACK JOB LIBERAL that cares more about Social Do-Gooder Causes, Sex Issues, Pandering, Cowering To Our Enemy, Neglecting Our Military, and bringing Hollywood back to the White House.
These are the things the Howard Dean Democrats want, these are the things the American People DON'T WANT.
Kerry/Gore are the reason George Bush is living in the White House, if the Democrats had come up with a "decent candidate" Bush would never have made it.
The Democrtats will repeat this mistake again, they want a FAR LEFT WHACK JOB LIBERAL that cares more about Social Do-Gooder Causes, Sex Issues, Pandering, Cowering To Our Enemy, Neglecting Our Military, and bringing Hollywood back to the White House.
These are the things the Howard Dean Democrats want, these are the things the American People DON'T WANT.
Kerry and Gore are polling worse than George...
Linear Mode
