Gingrich gives Dems 80/20 odds in 2008

[scottinnj]

Gingrich is saying that if the Republican candidates don't break from the tradition set by Bush in the past 6 years, the Democrats have a 80% chance of taking the White House.

Clickey Clickey! (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070913nj1.htm)

[A.J.]

I think their chances are lot higher than that.

[ChrisTheCop]

Why? Who announced their candidacy today?

[PapaBear]

If I bet on the Dems, and they win, will Newt pay up? Don't make the odds, if you can't pay up.

[Yerdaddy]

I've seen Newt Gingrich several times in Washington and I'm giving 90/10 odds that he will take the last donut.

[epo]

Gingrich is saying that if the Republican candidates don't break from the tradition set by Bush in the past 6 years, the Democrats have a 80% chance of taking the White House.

Clickey Clickey! (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070913nj1.htm)

Then the question should be: "Is there a serious Republican candidate who is fundamentally different from Bush?"

Of course the answer to that is no, hence Newt's correct assertion.

[Zorro]

Not only will he take the last dounght, but use a saliva tipped finger to pick up the powdered sugar off the tray.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Not only will he take the last dounght, but use a saliva tipped finger to pick up the powdered sugar off the tray.


He has no chance against him


http://www.esimpsons.com/img/h/homer_simpson-0.jpg

[Bulldogcakes]

Gingrich is saying that if the Republican candidates don't break from the tradition set by Bush in the past 6 years, the Democrats have a 80% chance of taking the White House.

Clickey Clickey! (http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/070913nj1.htm)

He's wrong. Their chances are exactly 76.325% to win the next election.

76.325 and not a fraction more.

[Crispy123]

Gingrich is saying that if the Republican candidates don't break from the tradition...

... then they will end up getting BJ's from meth addicts in airport bathrooms!!!

[LiddyRules]

He gives the Democrats A LOT more of a shot than I do. I think the Democrats are once again going to shoot themselves in the foot with their inherent emptiness and the Republicans will again savage them politically when the time comes. And I'm not a Republican, I just don't see the Democrats having learned a thing from the past 8 years and the Republicans always willing to slice a few throats for fun.

[Yerdaddy]

He gives the Democrats A LOT more of a shot than I do. I think the Democrats are once again going to shoot themselves in the foot with their inherent emptiness and the Republicans will again savage them politically when the time comes. And I'm not a Republican, I just don't see the Democrats having learned a thing from the past 8 years and the Republicans always willing to slice a few throats for fun.

Agree. If Republicans don't diverge from Bush's campaign tactics I still make them favorites to win. Dems are better in power but worse at obtaining it.

[Thrice]

Agree. If Republicans don't diverge from Bush's campaign tactics I still make them favorites to win. Dems are better in power but worse at obtaining it.

If Bush really does take us to war with Iran, do you still think his campaign will work on America for a 3rd time? Let's not forget that Rove won't be around to guide any of the 08 Repubs.

[Yerdaddy]

If Bush really does take us to war with Iran, do you still think his campaign will work on America for a 3rd time?

Yes.

Let's not forget that Rove won't be around to guide any of the 08 Repubs.

Yes he will and so will his clones: Rove Legacy Laden With Protégés (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/washington/14legacy.html?ex=1190260800&en=9982fe4afb6b42a5&ei=5070) Rove's campaign tactics are proven winners and they will remain SOP for the GOP until the Dems find a way to overcome them - like growing a set. Hillary's the best man for that job this time around, but it still remains to be seen whether the tough bitch defense I expect from her will work or whether the rest of the party will learn anything from her or from their opponents since they didn't learn anything by 2004 from Rove in 2000. I expect Rove's influence on Republican campaigning will last at least a generation.

[Bulldogcakes]

Yes he will and so will his clones: Rove Legacy Laden With Protégés (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/washington/14legacy.html?ex=1190260800&en=9982fe4afb6b42a5&ei=5070) Rove's campaign tactics are proven winners and they will remain SOP for the GOP until the Dems find a way to overcome them - like growing a set. Hillary's the best man for that job this time around, but it still remains to be seen whether the tough bitch defense I expect from her will work or whether the rest of the party will learn anything from her or from their opponents since they didn't learn anything by 2004 from Rove in 2000. I expect Rove's influence on Republican campaigning will last at least a generation.

I'm not so sure Rove's tactics will continue to work in the future. Demographics are shifting, population is moving south and west and former Republican strongholds will likely not remain so much longer. Add in the anti-immigrant shit this administration has been forced into by its base and you've alienated (pardon the pun) a huge future voting base, one often in step with you philosophically. The reality is there just aren't going to be enough white protestants in the US to keep electing Bush's. Also don't forget BOTH of Bush's victories were razor thin, and the current field of republican candidates doesn't promise to inspire big turnout. So they can easily lose right there.

Unless of course, you guys nominate Hillary. Then they could nominate Howdy Doody and then even disaffected libertarian Republicans like me would RUN to the polls to vote for good ol Howdy. She's very divisive, very polarizing, further to the left than Bill and not a great salesperson for her point of view. Actually a pretty lousy one. Zero charm. The 'Nurse Ratchet' charge sticks to her like crazy glue.

[LiddyRules]

I'm not so sure Rove's tactics will continue to work in the future. Rove is probably one of the greatest politicking minds of the past 50 years. People will be studying him for years to come. His tactics will always work. It's the tactics that have worked since before this country was born, modernized with new technology.

[badmonkey]

If Rove had worked for Bill Clinton, Clinton would have become the permanent King of America. Not only would we have liked it, we would have voted for it.

[epo]

Rove is probably one of the greatest politicking minds of the past 50 years. People will be studying him for years to come. His tactics will always work. It's the tactics that have worked since before this country was born, modernized with new technology.

I couldn't disagree more with those statements. Rove's tactics aren't hard to identify at all; in fact they are the simplest tactics in the world.

Tactic #1: Emotion, emotion, emotion. Going back to olden times, that boy-fucker Aristotle told us that all arguments are based on three things: Ethos (credibility), Logos (logic) and Pathos (emotion). (http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html) The strongest pure argument is based logic & credibility, but won't play without emotion. The weakest pure argument is based on emotion thru credibility.

Rove's arguments are fundamentally the weakest arguments as they routinely avoid logic like a motherfucker and overload on the emotion. Hence the consistent "9/11" references, the "fags are cumming in your bedroom" and the "here come the brown people over the border" shit.

The mere fact is that the shitty Democratic strategists didn't point out the holes in the logic loud enough, destroying Bush's credibility earlier and telling an emotional story of their own. Of course with candidates like Gore & Kerry....it's a tough emotional sell.

Tactic 2: Congregation thru Segregation. If you learned anything in college about communications, it should have been that old drunk Kenneth Burke's theory of identification (http://www.acjournal.org/holdings/vol1/iss3/burke/quigley.html). If I the politician can make you the voter agree with my bullshit by a common point of identification, then you will likely become "substantially one" with me. Or in human terms....I got you. Hence parties running candidates that "look like" their district or "appeal to the masses" as that is the first step.

Rove undoubtably knows this theory, but here is the rub: the way to get there is thru "Congregation by segregation". Within the theory, for any group to to congregate, some segregation will naturally occur...but as a responsible communicator you are supposed to limit the segregation as much as possible. Rove ignores this tactic completely and segregates constantly to serve a means. It is actually a building block of his "wedge issue" tactic.

Of course the way to defeat this is to call Bravo Sierra on that communicator and do it quite loudly. Of course Donna Brazille & Bob Shrum were too big of pussies to call him out on it and bloody his nose.

Conclusion: Rove's tactics are easy to identify, but Yerdaddy identified you need a set of balls to defeat those tactics. Eventually what happens over time, Rovian policy becomes quick outdated and the "Rove du Jour" becomes an embarrassment upon history. But a new Rove will always step up...the challenge is to step up with them and consistently punch them in the mouth.

[LiddyRules]

Tactic #1: Emotion, emotion, emotion

Rove's arguments are fundamentally the weakest arguments as they routinely avoid logic Which is why it works and will always work.

The mere fact is that the shitty Democratic strategists didn't point out the holes in the logic loud enough, destroying Bush's credibility earlier and telling an emotional story of their own. Agreed.

Conclusion: Rove's tactics are easy to identify, but Yerdaddy identified you need a set of balls to defeat those tactics. Which the opponents do not have and STILL don't have. Whether it's something inherent in their own personality or something about Rove that made them scared to go up against him, I don't know

Eventually what happens over time, Rovian policy becomes quick outdated and the "Rove du Jour" becomes an embarrassment upon history. But you, and I, both said its tactics that have been around since the beginning of time. It might be an embarassment to "thinking" people but one of the huge problems with Democracy is that most people voting aren't thinking people.

I never said Rove revolutionized politics or that what he did was "good" or "right." What I said was he used classic techniques and put them in a modern setting. How he did that, with our more "cynical" time, and how he manipulated the people so well and showed how stupid this country is, is why I think people will appreciate his work.

[epo]

Which is why it works and will always work.

Agreed.

Which the opponents do not have and STILL don't have. Whether it's something inherent in their own personality or something about Rove that made them scared to go up against him, I don't know

But you, and I, both said its tactics that have been around since the beginning of time. It might be an embarassment to "thinking" people but one of the huge problems with Democracy is that most people voting aren't thinking people.

I never said Rove revolutionized politics or that what he did was "good" or "right." What I said was he used classic techniques and put them in a modern setting. How he did that, with our more "cynical" time, and how he manipulated the people so well and showed how stupid this country is, is why I think people will appreciate his work.

Actually I must disagree with you severely on this point. How well he did that for two elections will not be a study of the "genius" of Karl Rove, but rather a study of the social problems/conditions that allowed those tactics to succeed. Historically communication studies have worked off of that premise with that style of rhetoric.

The 2004 election will be easy for historians to nail down, it will be the 2000 election that will cause the rhetorical studies. Rove will be marginalized as a divisive force within the American populus and hence looked down upon.

[Yerdaddy]

I'm not so sure Rove's tactics will continue to work in the future. Demographics are shifting, population is moving south and west and former Republican strongholds will likely not remain so much longer. Add in the anti-immigrant shit this administration has been forced into by its base and you've alienated (pardon the pun) a huge future voting base, one often in step with you philosophically. The reality is there just aren't going to be enough white protestants in the US to keep electing Bush's. Also don't forget BOTH of Bush's victories were razor thin, and the current field of republican candidates doesn't promise to inspire big turnout. So they can easily lose right there.

You have to separate his electoral tactics from the policies. Bush had no resume to be POTUS. (Now PODUNK, he was probably overqualified, but that's another story.) So I consider a narrow victory for a guy with no resume and the stage presence of the average suspect on COPS a huge victory for Rove as a campaign strategy. And like any competitive sport successful strategies will be repeated until a counter-strategy that can counter it is employed. Rove is a winner and nobody can deny that.

Unless of course, you guys nominate Hillary. Then they could nominate Howdy Doody and then even disaffected libertarian Republicans like me would RUN to the polls to vote for good ol Howdy. She's very divisive, very polarizing, further to the left than Bill and not a great salesperson for her point of view. Actually a pretty lousy one. Zero charm. The 'Nurse Ratchet' charge sticks to her like crazy glue.

You'll have to prove to me that Hillary is more liberal than Bill. I don't think she is and I think that will help her electability. She is a get-out-the-vote campaign for the right, for sure. But I do think that her nasty personality (testicles) is the one thing that could win her over the moderates who didn't go for Gore or Kerry because they were seen as wishy-washy. The left is more moderate than it was in the 60s through the 80s and they respect strength more than pacifism. Hillary is the only candidate who could give the mainstream what they want - someone who will stand up to the right. It's not a sure thing - will probably be a close election - but she's the only one with a shot, I think.

Aside from that I agree with Liddy above but I'll read epo's points and links after I finish the poker tournament I'm already late for. Looks interesting.