–|PW|–

SaveFarris held that the Democrats won the 1998 elections, because they did not lose congressional seats, as is normally the case in an off year election, but gained five seats in the House of Representatives. Such still did not give the Democrats a majority in either House, but it was generally considered to be a Democratic victory.

Let’s at least define what constitutes a victory, at least for the purposes of debate.

OK, if you want it THAT way, a majority did not vote for Mr. Bush either. A majority did not vote for Mr. Nader or Mr. Buchanan or any of the other crackpot candidates farther down the list.

NONE of the candidtates had a message that persuaded the majority. Yet one of them still won. Making your original point, pointless.

Uh, yes he did.

The “majority” accepted Gore’s message over Mr. Bush’s.

Electoral College. Ever hear of it?

As great as I think Al Gore is, and as good a movie as Inconvenient Truth is – he would have much more impact if he had won the presidency than any documentary could ever have. He allowed an election with an idiot George W. Bush to be close enough to steal.

Hmmm: he’s outsmarted y’all several times, but George Bush is an idiot? What does that make you?

Mr Gore didn’t “allow” the 2000 election to be close: he simply didn’t have the message that persuaded a majority to accept it. Yeah, he was a wooden candidate, but y’all thought he was good enough that you gave him the nomination without much of a fight. (Kind of like we did with Bob Dole in 1996.)

But your biggest mistake is that you’ve gone for “niche” campaigns: in trying to appeal to so many separate demographic groups, you’ve ignored the mass of the population. Y’all might win this November, because Iraq is an issue which doesn’t tailor itself to separate groups, but the population as a whole, but when (not if, when) you go back to trying to appeal specifically to blacks or to Latinos or to homosexuals or to singles or to whatever separate group you choose, you’ll lose again.

In my adult life I’ve seen exactly one electoral victory for the party on a national level (1996). You guys are losers in my book.

For once, I agree with you Mr Willis!

Any formal plan released by the Dems will provide cons with ammo to deflect from their utter failure to govern.

Of course, I don’t think it’s a good plan, but what do I know, I’m not Bob Shrum, I haven’t lost every election for the Democrats.

–|PW|–

And that has continued a pattern of Democrats giving away the game – and I’m supposed to applaud that? Can you point to any reason why the electoral track record of the Dems 2000-present gives them any sort of benefit of the doubt? Is it self-serving (I’m not exactly sure how you get that) to say “hey, maybe we ought to go into this with the mindset that it isn’t a coronation because we suck at winning elections”?

There are structural deficiencies within the Democratic party that restrain it from having a clue and winning elections. It’s not my lot in life to be a tireless cheerleader for failure. Very important things are at stake and there’s no glory in coming in second.

Oliver, you just don’t get it.

Al Gore comes out with this provocative, interesting and popular documentary on global climate change, and all you care about is the fact that he didn’t get that electoral win in 2000.

If the Democrats don’t pick up any seats this Fall, or take control of the house, it won’t be because they didn’t listen to your advice.

If they do pull off a historic sweep into power, it will be despite your constant self-serving “whine” about the state of affairs in the Democratic party. What are you planning to get out of this? The right to say “I told you so?”

Calling Al Gore a loser? At least he’s in the policy arena trying to affect change that could improve our climate, and the lives of future generations of Americans.

Are you nuts? What effing side are you on?

Buy a clue, OW. Off to read someone at least a tiny bit more optimistic. You’re bringing me down.

JK