Emerging Dem. Minority II

United Press International ^ | November 21, 2003 | Horace Cooper

[Better to Be Lucky Than Good]

It's been a year since the November 2002 midterm elections.

At this time last year, the serious erosion of the Democrats' national political support was obvious for all to see. The 2002 election was an almost across-the-board loss for them, leading some to suggest the results be taken as a wake-up call, an indication of the need to recalibrate the party's philosophy and message.

Relying on indicia such as predicted demographic changes in the U.S. in the 21st century; the Washington and New York media expert view that America is a 50/50 nation evenly divided; aggressive internet activity and fundraising by leftist organizations such as Moveon.org; and a nascent anti-war movement; Democratic leaders have determined that no course correction is necessary.

[dirtboy]

Better to Be Lucky Than Good - Worse, however, is your case when you're neither.

[Maceman]

Speaking of shadenfreude, I am looking forward to spending a lot of time at DU on election night. Hope their site doesn't crash.


(Hope FR doesn't crash either. That's where I'll be headed for the gloating and the victory party).

[expatpat]

It's soooo sad.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Speaking of shadenfreude, I am looking forward to spending a lot of time at DU on election night. Hope their site doesn't crash.

You and me both.

[CedarDave]

Truth in advertising, please. This comes from GOPUSA, not UPI.

According to this guy, the glass is not just half-full, it's overflowing for the Pubbies. Check to see its just Kool-aid he's drinking!! Wonder what his predictions were leading up to the 2000 election? I remember it was supposed to be an easy win for W. Never underestimate the ability of the Rats to cheat, steal, lie and otherwise commit election fraud next year. A rosy scenario doesn't translate to a satisfying victory without hard work and vigilance on the part of the Republican electorate.

[Better to Be Lucky Than Good]

CedarDave, this is on UPI, and GOPUSA. It just looked easier to read in the format on GOPUSA. But here's the link for UPI too.

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtml?Story=st/sn/11190000aaa020c2.upi&Sys=siteia&Fid=POLITICS&Type=News&Filter=Politics

Outside View: Emerging Dem. minority II

By HORACE COOPER, A UPI Outside View commentary

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 (UPI) -- It's been a year since the November 2002 midterm elections.

At this time last year, the serious erosion of the Democrats' national political support was obvious for all to see. The 2002 election was an almost across-the-board loss for them, leading some to suggest the results be taken as a wake-up call, an indication of the need to recalibrate the party's philosophy and message.

[7beuties]

Very, very good and obsrevant point! Never turn your back on a rat, never take you eye off a wounded rat!

[Coop]

...2000. I remember it was supposed to be an easy win for W.

You remember some here parroting that line. Those of us following the polls knew it was going to be a close election, especially after the DWI revelation.

[CedarDave]

Very, very good and observant point! Never turn your back on a rat, never take you eye off a wounded rat!

Take a look at this thread I just posted. In NM, the Democrat SOS is proposing results be kept secret up to three weeks before announcing!

Delay Considered on Election Tallies (NM-as long as 3 weeks)

[CedarDave]

The polls just before the election had him up by several points, as I recall. Yes, the DUI coming out on the weekend before the election hurt him. But the polls, understandably, could not take into consideration the widespread actions by the RATS to add Rat votes in states like Wisconsin, Florida, and others where the race was close. I don't think it happened in NM where the laws are so lax that they didn't have to resort to tampering of results -- they allow double voting (registered in two locations), voting of relatives (alive or dead), etc. because ABSOLUTELY NO ID IS REQUIRED TO REGISTER OR TO VOTE!

[Coop]

The polls just before the election had him up by several points, as I recall.

Which still would not translate into an "easy win."

[BlackRazor]

"The polls just before the election had him up by several points, as I recall."

There was a definite tightening of the polls in the last couple days before the election, to the point where a couple had Gore with a slim lead and another had a tied race. By that point just about all of the polls had the race well within the margin for error. There was no question this was going to be a close call either way. Here were the major final pre-election poll results:

Zogby: +2 for Gore
CBS: +1 for Gore
Harris: Even
Gallup/CNN/USA Today: +2 for Bush
Pew Research: +2 for Bush
IBD/CSM/TIPP: +2 for Bush
ICR/Politics Now: +2 for Bush
NBC/WSJ: +3 for Bush
ABC/WashPost: +3 for Bush
Battleground: +5 for Bush

[CedarDave]

The point I am trying to make is that no matter how rosy a picture this writer paints, or how far Bush is up in the polls, you can't take anything for granted in an election where the Democrats will use any and all tricks, ploys, etc., including their allies in the liberal media, to get back in power.

[Luke21]

If we don't work our tails off, we could have another 1992 or Louisiana governor election fall right on top of us. Good point.

[Better to Be Lucky Than Good]

It seems to me the point of the author is not what a "cake-walk" GWB will have in November, but what an uphill battle the 'crats are gonna have and why. It doesn't mean we can take the election for granted, but it should mean that we at least know that America by and large prefers us over them. And while that's not as good as actually winning it's not an awful thing either.