Don't you people watch sports? You're supposed to poormouth yourself and talk up the opposition. When Bear Bryant was facing a pitiful opponent, he always talked about how great the other team was and how tough it would be.
Plus, on the not exactly implausible chance that Bush is reelected, one wouldn't want to be defeated by someone who ostensibly could have been beaten by a slug, no?
This actually gets complicated quickly. The Democrats are fighting two things: low expectations for GW and the sense that his re-election is inevitable. They need to raise expectations of GW personally, while reiterating the fact that he's failed. I don't think they're going to have any luck raising expectations, so they should pound the failures and tie them to the entire Bush operation. The point of raising their hands would have been to say: the American people are smart; they understand that although GW is a likable guy, his people are going off in a million directions and have bungled every major policy area--of course he's beatable.
Not a shred of evidence supports the idea that Bush will be an easy candidate to beat. Not the money, not the polls, not the trends in battleground states or even fromer Democrat strongholds nothing. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's gonna be a damn hard race - and every poll of Dean vs. Bush shows him losing. Not be large percentage, but we run elections electorally and Dean is ideally ill-equipped to win those battleground states. And Bush hasn't even started.
Let me put it this way. Jobs are looking up, and like to continue doing so. People vote by trends more than current statistics. The projected deficit is diminishing. That leaves Iraq, Afghanistan, and foreign relations as major areas where we have a chance to pounce Bush. I'd rather have someone capable of exploiting those to the fullest.
And I have no faith that Dean is better at diplomacy then Bush. He's every bit as arrogant; put a guy who speaks as though the Soviet Union were still around in charge, and the rest of the world thinks "Another American who can't find Europe on the map. We thought it was a fluke, but it must be the country.
I don't think anyone (including me and Atrios) thinks Bush will be easy to beat. Saying "even a slug could beat George Bush" just means: Bush's record has been so awful that being better than him is a very very low bar.
Don't you people watch sports? You're supposed to poormouth yourself and talk up the opposition. When Bear Bryant was facing a pitiful opponent, he always talked about how great the other team was and how tough it would be.
Plus, on the not exactly implausible chance that Bush is reelected, one wouldn't want to be defeated by someone who ostensibly could have been beaten by a slug, no?
Posted by James Joyner | Link to this comment | 12-11-03 11:01 AM
This actually gets complicated quickly. The Democrats are fighting two things: low expectations for GW and the sense that his re-election is inevitable. They need to raise expectations of GW personally, while reiterating the fact that he's failed. I don't think they're going to have any luck raising expectations, so they should pound the failures and tie them to the entire Bush operation. The point of raising their hands would have been to say: the American people are smart; they understand that although GW is a likable guy, his people are going off in a million directions and have bungled every major policy area--of course he's beatable.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-11-03 11:33 AM
Not a shred of evidence supports the idea that Bush will be an easy candidate to beat. Not the money, not the polls, not the trends in battleground states or even fromer Democrat strongholds nothing. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's gonna be a damn hard race - and every poll of Dean vs. Bush shows him losing. Not be large percentage, but we run elections electorally and Dean is ideally ill-equipped to win those battleground states. And Bush hasn't even started.
Let me put it this way. Jobs are looking up, and like to continue doing so. People vote by trends more than current statistics. The projected deficit is diminishing. That leaves Iraq, Afghanistan, and foreign relations as major areas where we have a chance to pounce Bush. I'd rather have someone capable of exploiting those to the fullest.
And I have no faith that Dean is better at diplomacy then Bush. He's every bit as arrogant; put a guy who speaks as though the Soviet Union were still around in charge, and the rest of the world thinks "Another American who can't find Europe on the map. We thought it was a fluke, but it must be the country.
Posted by JoshD | Link to this comment | 12-11-03 5:39 PM
I don't think anyone (including me and Atrios) thinks Bush will be easy to beat. Saying "even a slug could beat George Bush" just means: Bush's record has been so awful that being better than him is a very very low bar.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 12-11-03 5:42 PM